The U.S. Supreme Court expanded its Second Amendment jurisprudence Thursday by striking down a Hawaii law that required private property owners to expressly authorize concealed firearms on their premises, prompting a sharp dissent from Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court ruled that Hawaii’s law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by effectively presuming that carrying a concealed firearm was prohibited on private property unless the owner had posted clear permission. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the restriction was inconsistent with the constitutional protections recognized in recent Second Amendment cases.
Jackson strongly disagreed, using her dissent to renew criticism of the Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Although she acknowledged that Bruen remains binding precedent, she argued that the majority had failed to apply its own framework consistently.
“I think Bruen was wrongly decided,” Jackson wrote. “But if it is going to be our precedent, the majority should at least endeavor to apply it faithfully.”
Her dissent, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the Court’s interpretation of Bruen continues to restrict the ability of state legislatures to enact firearm regulations that they believe are necessary to protect public safety.
“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”
A thread on Wolford v. Lopez. https://t.co/MJwEhuqwvR
— SAF (@2AFDN) June 25, 2026
According to Jackson, the Court has stretched the 2022 ruling beyond its intended scope.
“With this decision, the Court has now manipulated Bruen into a free-for-all that lets the Judiciary thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else,” she wrote. “Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law.”
The dispute centers on the constitutional standard established in Bruen, where the Supreme Court invalidated New York’s “good cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit. In that opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Rather than applying traditional balancing tests, courts are instructed to examine the text of the Second Amendment alongside historical evidence from the nation’s founding era.
That historical approach has become the governing framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges, resulting in numerous state and federal gun laws being challenged in court.
In defending Hawaii’s law, Jackson argued that the state had adopted a reasonable policy designed to protect private property owners who may not have realized concealed firearms could otherwise be carried on their premises. She noted that Hawaii was not acting alone, pointing out that several other states adopted similar measures following the Bruen decision.
After the Supreme Court struck down New York’s discretionary permitting system in 2022, Hawaii, Maryland, California, New York, and New Jersey enacted new laws that imposed broad restrictions on where licensed gun owners could carry firearms. Many of those statutes designated numerous public and private locations as off-limits unless property owners explicitly permitted firearms.
Gun-rights organizations quickly challenged those laws, referring to them as “vampire laws” because they required firearm owners to receive an invitation before entering private property while armed. The nickname drew on the folklore that vampires cannot enter a home without permission.
Federal courts reached differing conclusions as lawsuits moved through the judicial system. The Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law, while the Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion regarding Maryland’s statute. In contrast, the Second Circuit struck down New York’s version, creating a split among the federal appellate courts that ultimately set the stage for Supreme Court review.
