In Wolford v. Lopez (24-1046), the Supreme Court addressed whether a state may prohibit carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public without the owners’ permission. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Hawaii violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by prohibiting individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns from doing so without first receiving the property owner’s express authorization. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Additionally, Justice Barrett filed a concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B. Justice Kagan dissented, and Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent joined by Justice Sotomayor.

The primary Second Amendment rights case of the Term, Wolford arose when several Hawaiian concealed-carry permit holders challenged the State’s restrictions on carrying firearms in enumerated “sensitive places” and on private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. The Supreme Court granted review only as to Hawaii’s private property rule. As summarized in Dykema’s February 2026 edition, the petitioners argued that Hawaii’s restrictions unduly burdened the exercise of their Second Amendment rights and sought injunctive relief. Following on the heels of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), Wolford presented the Court with another opportunity to apply the historical analogue framework governing modern firearms regulations.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito concluded that Hawaii’s law was unconstitutional. The Court first reasoned that the law fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment because it applied to members of “the people” and restricted the “bearing” of arms by licensed individuals carrying handguns for self-defense. According to the majority, that made the law presumptively unconstitutional unless Hawaii could show that its new rule was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The Court concluded that Hawaii failed to make that showing. Notably, the Court rejected Hawaii’s reliance on local custom and Hawaii-centric legal traditions, emphasizing that the Second Amendment establishes a national constitutional standard that does not vary from state to state. Finally, the Court rejected Hawaii’s reliance on Louisiana’s post-Civil War Black Codes, concluding that such laws could not carry the weight in defining the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Barrett’s concurrence emphasized that the case was not merely a dispute about property law defaults. In her view, Hawaii’s law triggered Second Amendment scrutiny because it imposed a firearms-specific burden on the ability of licensed individuals to carry handguns in places they would otherwise be permitted to enter.

Justice Kagan dissented, concluding that Hawaii’s law was sufficiently analogous to historical laws requiring consent before carrying firearms on another person’s property. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, also dissented, arguing that Hawaii’s law reflected the traditional property law right to exclude others from entering the property and did not burden any Second Amendment right to carry firearms onto private property without the owner’s consent.

Wolford provides important guidance on the application of Bruen to modern carry restrictions. For businesses and other owners of private property open to the public, the practical point is equally important—the decision preserves the property owner’s ability to prohibit firearms on the premises, but it prevents the State from imposing a universal default rule that treats firearms as prohibited unless the owner affirmatively opts in.

Takeaways

• States may not flip the default rule for public-facing private property. After Wolford, a State may not broadly prohibit licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying firearms on private property open to the public or condition it on the owner’s advance, express permission. This decision reverses the presumption of permission, meaning licensed gun owners no longer need to look for a “guns welcome” sign to lawfully carry on business premises.
• Historical analogues must match the regulatory burden and justification. The Court reiterated that historical examples, to be persuasive and effective, must be relevant in both how and why they restricted firearms. Laws directed at local custom or discredited post-Civil War restrictions were not sufficient analogues for Hawaii’s broad default ban. In doing so, the Court deepened and further solidified Bruen’s application and impact.
• Private property owners retain control over their premises. The decision does not require businesses, hotels, restaurants, retailers, or other private property owners to allow firearms. Such owners may still exclude firearms, including posted policies or other communications.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Andrew VanEgmond, or Sadie Betting.