Wolford v. Lopez
| Wolford v. Lopez | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | Jason Wolford, et al. v. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii |
| Docket no. | 24-1046 |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding 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. | |
Wolford v. Lopez (Docket 24-1046) is a pending United States Supreme Court case dealing with licensed concealed carry gun owners and private property in regards to the Second Amendment. The case centers on Hawaii's gun laws that make it illegal for one to bring a concealed gun onto private property without permission of the property's owners.
Background
[edit]In a landmark decision regarding gun rights, the Supreme Court decided in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (597 U.S. 1 (2022)) that states may not impose restrictions on gun possession rights unless those laws are "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition" of gun laws, under the majority decision.[1]
Hawaii, which generally had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, passed a new set of gun laws in 2023 to comply with the Bruen ruling. Among other aspects, the new laws included a "vampire rule", a term based on the mythos of vampires that they could not enter one's home without permission; as applied to guns, the law made it illegal to bring a licensed concealed gun onto publicly-accessible private property, including retail and commercial properties, without previously getting permission from the owner. Hawaii's legislature developed the new laws with the impact of the Bruen ruling.[1]
Portions of the new law were challenged by gun owners and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition shortly after its passage, filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, with attorney general Anne E. Lopez defending for the state. Judge Leslie Kobayashi issued a temporarily injunction blocking the state from enforcing portions of the law, including the vampire rule, in August 2023, ruling that the plaintiffs had shown irrepairable harm if the laws were allowed to be enforced.[2]
The state appealed, and their appeal was heard in the Ninth Circuit alongside similar challenges to new post-Bruen gun laws passed in California. In September 2024, the three-judge panel upheld part of both states' laws as constitutional under Bruen, while other parts were not. Specifically related to the vampire rule, the court upheld Hawaii's law while rejecting California's, as Hawaii's law allowed for the permission to be requested orally, in writing, or through signage placed outside the private property, where California's law only allowed for signage and was considered too restrictive. The panel also ruled that the Second Amendment did not consider the rights of gun possession with respect to private property.[3] The Ninth Circuit denied an en banc rehearing in January 2025.[4]
Supreme Court
[edit]The original plaintiffs petitioned for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court shortly following the denial of an en banc hearing from the Ninth Circuit. Among their arguments, the petitioners identified that the Ninth Circuit's decision created a circuit split, urging the Supreme Court to resolve that disagreement among the circuit courts, in addition to questioning if Bruen was correctly applied at the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Government under the second Trump administration, urged the Supreme Court to take the case as to further refine the application of Bruen to other aspects of gun control laws.[5]
The Supreme Court certified the petition on October 3, 2025, though limited the case to the question of how the Second Amendment applies to publicly accessible private property and not the question of the Bruen application.[6]
References
[edit]- ^ a b Berman, Mark; Jouvenal, Justin (October 3, 2025). "Supreme Court will hear challenge to Hawaii gun law during new term". Washington Post. Retrieved October 3, 2025.
- ^ Hanson, Natalie (August 9, 2023). "Hawaii cannot prevent gun owners from carrying in many public areas — for now". Courthouse News. Retrieved October 3, 2025.
- ^ Hubler, Shawn (September 6, 2024). "California Can Ban Guns in Parks and Bars, but Not Hospitals, Court Says". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2025.
- ^ Gennaro, Michael (January 15, 2025). "Ninth Circuit won't rehear arguments on its decision to uphold gun-free zones in Hawaii and California". Courthouse News. Retrieved October 3, 2025.
- ^ Schonfeld, Zach (October 3, 2025). "Supreme Court takes up new Second Amendment case". The Hill. Retrieved October 3, 2025.
- ^ Howe, Amy (October 3, 2025). "Supreme Court to hear cases on guns, government confiscation, and several other issues". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved October 3, 2025.