Wolford v. Lopez
The Court holds that a Hawaii law barring licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public unless the owner gives express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. By flipping the common-law default — under which anyone has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent — the law imposes a severe new burden on the right to carry arms for self-defense, and the State's historical analogues, mostly old anti-poaching hunting laws, are too far afield to justify it.
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.