Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Wolford v. Lopez
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Wolford v. Lopez
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf
Case background
For years, Hawaii made it almost impossible to obtain a license to carry a
firearm. After this Court held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v.
Bruen that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry
handguns outside the home for self-defense, Hawaii replaced its old carry-permit
law 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 — flipping the
default rule at common law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter
property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent. Petitioners
— three residents of Maui County who possess concealed-carry permits, together
with an organizational plaintiff whose members hold such permits — filed suit in
federal court seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief, contending that
the law violates their constitutional rights. The District Court enjoined
enforcement of the law as applied to private property open to the public, but
the Ninth Circuit reversed that injunction.
Questions Presented
(1) 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?
(2) 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?
The petition presented two questions, but the Court granted certiorari limited
to the first. The second question — concerning the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on
post-Reconstruction-era and later laws — was not taken up.
Holding
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. The
restrictions fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is
presumptively unconstitutional, and Hawaii’s shift from the common-law rule
imposes a new and significant burden on the right recognized in Bruen. The
State’s proffered historical analogues — chiefly colonial and early state laws
against unauthorized hunting, an 1893 Oregon armed-trespass statute, and an 1865
Louisiana Black Code provision — do not support the new default rule: the
anti-poaching laws applied to land where game could be found rather than the
retail establishments residents frequent daily, and the remaining statutes are
too late, too isolated, or too tainted to illuminate the original understanding
of the right to keep and bear arms.
The Court
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts
and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Barrett
filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined as to
Part II-B. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Jackson filed a
dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Wolford v. Lopez, written by Justice Alito.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Alito. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf
Case background
For years, Hawaii made it almost impossible to obtain a license to carry a
firearm. After this Court held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v.
Bruen that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry
handguns outside the home for self-defense, Hawaii replaced its old carry-permit
law 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 — flipping the
default rule at common law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter
property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent. Petitioners
— three residents of Maui County who possess concealed-carry permits, together
with an organizational plaintiff whose members hold such permits — filed suit in
federal court seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief, contending that
the law violates their constitutional rights. The District Court enjoined
enforcement of the law as applied to private property open to the public, but
the Ninth Circuit reversed that injunction.
Questions Presented
(1) 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?
(2) 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?
The petition presented two questions, but the Court granted certiorari limited
to the first. The second question — concerning the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on
post-Reconstruction-era and later laws — was not taken up.
Holding
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. The
restrictions fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is
presumptively unconstitutional, and Hawaii’s shift from the common-law rule
imposes a new and significant burden on the right recognized in Bruen. The
State’s proffered historical analogues — chiefly colonial and early state laws
against unauthorized hunting, an 1893 Oregon armed-trespass statute, and an 1865
Louisiana Black Code provision — do not support the new default rule: the
anti-poaching laws applied to land where game could be found rather than the
retail establishments residents frequent daily, and the remaining statutes are
too late, too isolated, or too tainted to illuminate the original understanding
of the right to keep and bear arms.
The Court
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts
and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Barrett
filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined as to
Part II-B. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Jackson filed a
dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Wolford v. Lopez, written by Justice Alito.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Alito. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.