Wolford v. Lopez
609 U. S. ___ (2026) · 6/25/26
Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Edition: slip opinion
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Barrett, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join as to Part II–B, concurring. · Justice Kagan, dissenting. · Justice Jackson, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, dissenting.
For years, the State of Hawaii made it almost impossible to obtain a license to carry a firearm. Four years ago, however, this Court held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. Hawaii responded by replacing its old law on carry permits with new laws that achieved a similar result. At issue in this case is a Hawaii law that prohibits firearms on private property open to the public without the express and affirmative consent of the property owner.…
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, with the Amendment’s “central” concern being the fundamental right of self-defense. Id., at 577. Heller instructed courts to ascertain the scope of the right by looking to history and emphatically rejected an ahistorical “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry.’ ” Id., at 634. The Court later held in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, that the Second Amendment right applies equally to the Federal Government and the States through the Fourteenth…Read it in the reading room ›