Wolford v. Lopez, Docket No. 24-1046

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court has struck down a Hawaii law that required gun owners to get explicit permission from business owners before carrying concealed handguns into stores, restaurants, and gas stations. The 6-to-3 decision means millions of Americans with permits to carry guns have a constitutional right to bring them into private businesses, even if owners don't want them there. The ruling could invalidate similar laws in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.

What Hawaii's Law Did and Why It Mattered

In 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that made it much easier for people to carry guns in public. Hawaii responded by flipping the default rule for private businesses. Instead of allowing armed customers unless told to leave, the state required gun owners to get the business owner's explicit permission first. Supporters said this protected workers and customers from the risks of armed strangers in everyday spaces. Gun rights advocates said it violated their constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense.

A group of Maui County residents with valid concealed carry permits sued, arguing the law blocked them from protecting themselves during routine errands. A trial court agreed and blocked the law, but an appeals court reversed that decision. The Supreme Court then took the case and sided with the gun owners.

The Two Sides Made Competing Arguments About Rights and Property

The gun owners' lawyer argued that Hawaii's law clearly restricted Second Amendment rights and that the state had to prove the law matched America's historical tradition of gun regulation. He said Hawaii's examples didn't work. Old colonial hunting laws were about preventing poaching on rural land, not about keeping guns out of grocery stores. A Louisiana law from 1865 was part of the Black Codes, a system designed to strip rights from freed slaves, and could not serve as a legitimate historical model.

Hawaii's lawyer took a different approach. He argued the case was really about property rights, not gun rights. Since no one has a constitutional right to enter private property without permission, the only question was whether states could set their own rules about how that permission works. He said Hawaii reasonably concluded that business owners would not expect their customers to be armed.

The federal government sided with the gun owners, arguing that Hawaii was using property law as a backdoor way to avoid constitutional limits on gun regulation. The justices' questions during oral arguments revealed deep disagreement. Some sympathized with Hawaii's concerns about public safety and noted that most Hawaiians opposed guns in businesses. Others questioned why the law only targeted firearms and not other weapons, suggesting the property rights argument might be a cover for something else.

The Majority Rejected Hawaii's Law on Two Grounds

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, applying a two-part test the Court created in its 2022 gun rights decision. First, the majority found it straightforward that Hawaii's law restricted the kind of conduct the Second Amendment protects. The majority rejected Hawaii's argument that the case should be dismissed because no one has a right to carry on private property without consent. To show the real-world burden, the majority described a woman who carries a firearm for protection against a violent ex and who could become a criminal multiple times over just by running daily errands.

Second, the majority examined every historical law Hawaii offered as a comparison and rejected them all. The hunting laws were about preventing unauthorized hunting on rural land and the harms it caused, like theft of game and stray gunfire. Those harms have nothing to do with someone quietly carrying a concealed weapon through a grocery store. The majority also rejected an 1893 Oregon law as too recent and isolated to matter. Most importantly, the majority flatly rejected the Louisiana Black Code, calling it a tool of racial oppression that cannot serve as a legitimate historical model.

A Separate Opinion Clarified the Court's Reasoning

Justice Barrett wrote separately, joined in part by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. She made two key points. First, states cannot escape constitutional review simply by calling a gun restriction a property regulation. If a state required express permission before someone could wear religious clothing in a store, that would obviously raise First Amendment concerns. The same logic applies to guns.

Second, Barrett offered a sharper way to think about historical comparisons. States can pass focused regulations targeting specific dangers in specific places. But Hawaii's law does not target any particular danger or specific misuse of firearms. It responds to a general discomfort with guns being present at all, which is a much broader and less historically grounded justification. This distinction between targeted regulations addressing specific harms and blanket restrictions based on generalized disapproval is likely to shape how courts evaluate similar laws going forward.

The Dissenters Argued the Majority Went Too Far

Justice Kagan wrote a brief dissent saying the old hunting laws were close enough to Hawaii's law to count as valid historical comparisons. Both set a default rule against armed entry that a property owner can reverse, and both respond to dangers that armed individuals can pose on someone else's property.

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, made a longer argument. She said the case should never have reached the second stage of the test because the Second Amendment simply does not give anyone the right to carry a firearm onto private property without the owner's consent. She also argued that the majority's approach to the first stage makes it nearly useless as a filter, putting an enormous burden on governments trying to regulate guns. At the second stage, she pointed to founding era and Reconstruction era laws that required affirmative consent for armed entry onto private property, including in places open to the public like taverns and stores. She accused the majority of demanding a perfect historical match while claiming not to, and of dismissing the hunting laws too quickly.

What This Decision Means Going Forward

The ruling establishes that states cannot defeat a gun rights challenge early in the legal process by pointing to property law principles. They must go through a full historical comparison, and the burden is on them to prove their law matches historical regulations in both how it works and why it was enacted.

The decision also draws a line between targeted gun regulations and blanket restrictions. States can pass focused regulations addressing specific, identified dangers in specific places. But they cannot impose broad restrictions driven by a general dislike of firearms. This distinction is likely to be the most influential part of the decision as lower courts evaluate similar laws.

The ruling directly threatens comparable laws in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. It also reaffirms that the Second Amendment sets a single national standard that applies equally in every state. Local history, local culture, and local public opinion cannot change the scope of a constitutional right.

One important question remains unresolved. The majority rejects the Louisiana Black Code because it was not widely adopted and was a tool of racial oppression. But the dissenters call for a clear rule to determine which historical laws count as evidence and which do not. Lower courts will now have to navigate this without clear guidance.

In practical terms, this decision means that gun owners with permits may now have a constitutional right to carry concealed handguns into private businesses in Hawaii and other states with similar laws, even if business owners object. The Court has decided that this right cannot be restricted based on general public safety concerns or local preferences. States can still regulate guns in specific ways to address specific dangers, but they cannot simply tell gun owners to stay out.