Wolford v. Lopez

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Oct 2025

1. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson, 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi, No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are:
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Hawaii barred licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public unless the owner gave express permission. The Court held that this default rule violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Alito wrote that the law is covered by the Amendment's plain text because petitioners are among the people and seek to bear arms. The law also imposed a new and significant burden by reversing the common-law default for places like stores and restaurants, making ordinary daily travel much harder for permit holders. Hawaii's historical analogues did not save the law. The Court said local custom cannot change the Second Amendment's meaning, the anti-poaching laws it cited were not similar enough, and the later Oregon statute and Louisiana Black Code law carried little weight. The judgment was reversed and remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Kagan dissented, joined by no other justice in that opinion, and argued that Hawaii's law should be upheld because it was a modern analogue of older laws that also barred carrying firearms onto private property without the owner's affirmative consent. She said the relevant similarity was the default rule against gun carry that a landowner could reverse, and that the laws shared a similar justification in addressing dangers and harms from armed entry. Justice Jackson also dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor. She argued that the majority read the Second Amendment too broadly at step one and ignored property rights, and that Hawaii in any event showed its law fit within the historical tradition under Bruen's second step.