Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii's No-Carry Default on Private Property Open to the Public
Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii's No-Carry Default on Private Property Open to the Public
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25, 2026 that the Second Amendment forbids states from making carry a crime by default on private property open to the public. The decision in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, directly invalidates Hawaii's post-Bruen law and puts nearly identical statutes in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey on constitutionally untenable ground.
Information last verified on June 26, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Status: Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2026 (No. 24-1046); reversed and remanded in relevant part.
Jurisdiction scope: This is a federal constitutional ruling binding on all 50 states. Its most immediate effect falls on Hawaii (whose law was directly at issue) and the four states with materially identical post-Bruen statutes: California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. For a broader look at self-defense laws by state, see our hub.
What Happened
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, reversing a Ninth Circuit judgment that had upheld Hawaii's Act 52 of 2023. The vote was 6 to 3.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett also filed a concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B, in which she rejected several of the historical analogues Hawaii offered in defense of the law, noting that Hawaii itself "does not dispute that most of the 19th-century laws were understood not to address the carry of guns in general but to curtail the freedom of blacks in particular," and adding that "It is beyond me why Hawaii would claim that these vile laws can justify its present-day restriction."
Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion arguing that Hawaii's law was a modern analogue of colonial and founding-era laws that prohibited carrying firearms onto private property without the owner's affirmative consent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, contending the majority misapplied Bruen and that the case turned on property law rather than the Second Amendment; Jackson also reiterated her view that Bruen itself was wrongly decided.
The central holding of the majority: Hawaii's statute, which made it a criminal offense for a concealed-carry permit holder to enter private property open to the public without the property owner's or operator's express affirmative consent, violates the Second Amendment. The default rule the Second Amendment requires is carry-permitted. A property owner who wants to exclude lawfully carried firearms must affirmatively do so. The obligation is on the owner to say no, not on the permit holder to obtain permission before entry.
Justice Alito put it this way in the majority opinion: "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."
What fell: The private-property default-prohibition provision of Hawaii's Act 52 of 2023 (enacted as SB 1230), the provision that made carry a misdemeanor absent express owner authorization on any privately owned property open to the public.
What was not addressed: The Court did not rule on Hawaii's separate statutory restrictions covering beaches, parks, bars and restaurants serving alcohol, and adjacent parking areas. Those provisions were not presented to the Court as part of this case and remain in place pending any further litigation.
The Ninth Circuit's judgment upholding Act 52's default rule was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
What the Law Actually Says
The Bruen framework. In N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense and struck down New York's "may issue" licensing regime. Bruen also set the governing constitutional test: a firearms regulation is valid only if it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Courts may not apply the two-step means-ends scrutiny that several circuits had used previously.
Hawaii's legislative response. After losing the ability to restrict who could obtain a carry permit, Hawaii in 2023 enacted Act 52 (SB 1230), which pursued a different objective: sharply restricting where permit holders could lawfully carry. The law's centerpiece was a "default prohibition" rule. Under Act 52, any private property open to the public, a gas station, a grocery store, a restaurant, a hotel lobby, was by operation of law a place where firearms were forbidden, unless the property owner posted a sign or otherwise communicated affirmative consent. The burden of permission fell on the permit holder.
The constitutional defect. The majority found no founding-era tradition of the government mandating prior-permission requirements for lawful firearms carry on property voluntarily open to the public. Common law held that a property owner could exclude any person or thing from private property, but that exclusion had to be communicated. The default was entry permitted. Act 52 inverted that rule specifically as to firearms: the default was exclusion, with entry permitted only upon affirmative owner consent. The Court held that inversion had no historical analogue sufficient to survive Bruen scrutiny.
The parallel statutes. Following Bruen, California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey each enacted substantially similar default-prohibition provisions. Under those laws, permit holders entering private businesses and spaces open to the public face criminal liability unless the owner has communicated affirmative consent, the same structure Act 52 adopted in Hawaii. Each of those provisions now rests on the same constitutional foundation the Court rejected in Wolford.
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
Wolford v. Lopez is the most consequential Second Amendment ruling since Bruen itself. It does two distinct things: it resolves an open doctrinal question Bruen left untouched, and it forecloses a specific legislative workaround that several states moved quickly to exploit.
The doctrinal gap Bruen left. Bruen established the right to carry in public and struck down discretionary "may issue" licensing. It did not resolve how the Second Amendment applies once a permit is in hand and a person approaches private property open to the public. Several circuits had not settled the question. Hawaii's Act 52 was a direct attempt to fill that gap in the state's favor: grant permits freely (as Bruen required) but then make nearly all of public commercial life off-limits absent affirmative owner consent. Wolford closes that gap by holding that the default must run the other way.
What the default rule changes in practice. Before Wolford, a permit holder in Hawaii (and the four analogous states) had to determine, property by property, whether the owner had posted a sign or otherwise communicated permission. The practical answer for most businesses was that the permit holder could not legally carry there, because most owners had not issued any consent. After Wolford, the analysis reverses. A permit holder in those states may, as a constitutional baseline, carry on private property open to the public. The question shifts to whether the owner has communicated a prohibition. Under property law and the common-law trespass framework, that notice still suffices to exclude, but the burden is now on the property owner to communicate it.
The Bruen historical-tradition test in action. Justice Alito's application of Bruen's test to Act 52 illustrates how the Court views the historical-analogue methodology. The majority found no founding-era precedent for a government-imposed default prohibition on carrying in commercial spaces open to the public, a category of space that, in the founding era, encompassed taverns, markets, ferry landings, and similar venues. The historical record showed that individual owners could restrict entry, not that the government mandated carry exclusion as the background rule.
Limits on this ruling. Wolford does not bar all place-based restrictions. "Sensitive places", government buildings, schools, courthouses, polling places, remain constitutional under Heller and Bruen. What Wolford holds is that privately owned commercial property open to the public is not a category that states may constitutionally convert into a firearms-free zone by default. The Court also left untouched Hawaii's separate restrictions on beaches, parks, and alcohol-serving establishments, which were not before it.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers federal Second Amendment law and the affected states and reflects sources verified on June 26, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
How This Affects You
If you hold a concealed-carry permit in one of the five directly affected states, Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York, or New Jersey, the practical landscape will shift, but the timing varies.
The Wolford ruling does not automatically repeal those states' statutes on the day of the decision. A court must actually enjoin enforcement, or the state must affirmatively amend or repeal the law. In the near term, enforcement agencies in those states may continue operating under existing statutes while legislation or follow-on litigation catches up. Permit holders should not treat the ruling as an immediate green light to carry anywhere absent legal advice from a lawyer licensed in their state.
For property owners, the decision means that a "no firearms" policy on private property open to the public remains legally permissible, but must be communicated. A posted sign, verbal notice, or equivalent communication still provides a basis for excluding permit holders and, under state criminal trespass law, for enforcement if a person refuses to leave after being told.
For permit holders outside the five states, Wolford has no direct statutory effect. Most states already use an "opt-out" (or "no guns posted") model rather than a "default prohibited" model, meaning they already conform to what the Court held is constitutionally required.
What Happens Next
Hawaii. The Ninth Circuit will receive the remand and must reconsider the lower-court proceedings consistent with Wolford. Hawaii's legislature will face pressure to amend Act 52 to remove the default-prohibition structure. Separately, the provisions that were not before the Court, beaches, parks, bars, and restaurants, remain in force but may draw follow-on challenges now that Wolford has established the governing framework.
California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. Plaintiffs in already-pending challenges to those states' analogous statutes will cite Wolford in motions for injunctions or summary judgment. Each state will have to decide whether to defend the statutes as distinguishable from Act 52 (a difficult argument given the structural similarity), amend them to comply, or repeal the default-prohibition provisions outright. Legislative action is likely faster in some of those states than litigation; the political dynamics vary by state.
Future Second Amendment litigation. Wolford gives the lower courts a template for evaluating other post-Bruen statutes that impose affirmative-permission requirements on carry. Cases involving other restricted categories, transit systems, college campuses, parking structures, may now move more quickly to resolution under the historical-tradition test. The Court's separate holding that "sensitive places" remain a valid regulatory category was not revisited; that line holds.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers federal Second Amendment law and the affected states and reflects sources verified on June 26, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Sources
- U.S. Supreme Court, slip opinion, Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (June 25, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), via Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-843
- SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii gun restriction" (June 25, 2026): https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-hawaii-gun-restriction/
- SCOTUSblog, Wolford v. Lopez case page: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/wolford-v-lopez/
- CBS News, "Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law restricting guns on private property that's open to public" (June 25, 2026): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-hawaii-gun-law-wolford-v-lopez-decision/
- Reason / Volokh Conspiracy, "SCOTUS overturns Hawaii's default rule against guns on private property open to the public" (June 25, 2026): https://reason.com/2026/06/25/scotus-overturns-hawaiis-default-rule-against-guns-on-private-property-open-to-the-public/
- Cornell LII, Wolford v. Lopez: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/24-1046
Related articles
- Self-Defense Laws by State
- Hawaii Self-Defense Laws
- California Self-Defense Laws
- New York Self-Defense Laws
- New Jersey Self-Defense Laws
- Maryland Self-Defense Laws
Last updated: 2026-06-26. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-06-26.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in Wolford v. Lopez?
On June 25, 2026, the Court held 6-3 that the Second Amendment forbids states from making it a crime by default for a concealed-carry permit holder to enter private property open to the public. The ruling requires that the default be carry-permitted; a property owner must affirmatively communicate a prohibition. The case arose from Hawaii's Act 52 of 2023, enacted in response to Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
Who wrote the majority opinion and who dissented?
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Barrett filed a concurrence joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B. Justice Kagan dissented alone. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor.
What was Hawaii's law and why was it challenged?
Hawaii's Act 52 of 2023 made it a misdemeanor for a concealed-carry permit holder to enter any privately owned property open to the public, a store, restaurant, hotel, gas station, without the property owner's express affirmative consent. Permit holders and a gun-rights organization challenged the law as incompatible with the Second Amendment and the historical tradition of firearms regulation as interpreted by Bruen.
Does this ruling ban all place-based gun restrictions?
No. The Court did not disturb the longstanding principle that states may restrict firearms in sensitive places such as schools, government buildings, and courthouses. The ruling is specifically limited to privately owned commercial or other property open to the general public. Hawaii's separate restrictions on beaches, parks, and bars or restaurants serving alcohol were not before the Court and remain in place.
Which other states are affected?
California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey enacted substantially similar default-prohibition statutes after Bruen. The Court's holding in Wolford applies to any law that makes carry a crime on private property open to the public absent affirmative owner consent, regardless of which state enacted it. Those four states now face litigation or legislative pressure to amend or repeal the analogous provisions.
Can private businesses still prohibit guns after this ruling?
Yes. The ruling does not strip property owners of the right to exclude firearms. Under common-law trespass principles, a business owner who posts a sign or otherwise communicates a no-firearms policy may still prohibit carry on the property. What the ruling prohibits is the state imposing that exclusion by default, as a criminal matter, without any action by the owner.
If I have a carry permit in Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, or Maryland, can I now carry anywhere?
Not automatically. The ruling does not repeal state statutes on the date of the decision. Enforcement may continue while legislation or court orders catch up. Sensitive-places restrictions and other carry limitations remain valid. You should consult a lawyer licensed in your state before changing your carry practices.
What happens to Hawaii's law on remand?
The Ninth Circuit must reconsider the case consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The default-prohibition provision of Act 52 cannot survive as written. Hawaii may amend the statute to comply with the ruling, for example, by shifting to an opt-out model where property owners who wish to exclude firearms must post notice, or it may repeal the provision.
How does this ruling relate to Bruen?
N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), established that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, and it set the historical-tradition test for evaluating regulations. Wolford applies that test to a specific legislative response to Bruen, the default-prohibition rule on private property open to the public, and finds no sufficient founding-era historical analogue for it.
Sources and References
- Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, slip opinion (U.S. June 25, 2026)(supremecourt.gov).gov
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), Cornell LII(law.cornell.edu)
- SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii gun restriction" (June 25, 2026)(scotusblog.com)
- SCOTUSblog, Wolford v. Lopez case page (No. 24-1046)(scotusblog.com)
- CBS News, "Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law restricting guns on private property that's open to public" (June 25, 2026)(cbsnews.com)
- Reason / Volokh Conspiracy, "SCOTUS overturns Hawaii's default rule against guns on private property open to the public" (June 25, 2026)(reason.com)
- Cornell LII, Wolford v. Lopez (No. 24-1046)(law.cornell.edu)