Menendez v. Holt was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a challenge to a California law that prohibited the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21. The plaintiffs, two individuals under the age of 21, argued that the law violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the law was overly broad and did not take into account the individual circumstances of the plaintiffs. The Court also noted that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. As a result, the Court struck down the law and held that individuals under the age of 21 have the right to purchase firearms.

In the dissenting opinion of Menendez v. Holt, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority’s decision to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court ruling was wrong and would have far-reaching implications for future cases involving similar facts. She noted that the Supreme Court had previously held in United States v. Windsor that laws which discriminate against same-sex couples are subject to heightened scrutiny under equal protection principles, yet here it failed to apply such scrutiny when evaluating California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. Furthermore, she argued that by not applying this standard of review, the court was essentially allowing states to continue discriminating against certain classes of people without any meaningful judicial oversight or intervention from federal courts—a result she found unacceptable given our nation’s commitment to equality and justice for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. In conclusion, Justice Sotomayor urged her colleagues not only to reconsider their decision but also take into account how their ruling could affect other vulnerable groups who may be similarly discriminated against in the future if no action is taken now.