Skip to main content

No. 24-1046October Term 2025Decided Jun 25, 2026

Docket 24-1046October Term 2025 (2025–2026)

Jason Wolford, et al., Petitioners v. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii

States cannot make public-facing private property presumptively off-limits to licensed concealed carriers unless an owner gives express permission.

Case status

Current stage
Decided
Latest event
Decision released Jun 25, 2026
Case Accepted
Arguments HeardJan 20, 2026
Decision ReleasedJun 25, 2026
What it's about

The Court is considering a civil rights case about the standard for qualified immunity when law enforcement officers use force during an arrest. The case addresses how courts evaluate excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment.

Question presented

Does a law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives “express authorization” violate the Second Amendment?

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Decision released Jun 25, 2026

Area

Gun Rights, Civil Rights

Briefing

What it's about

The Supreme Court said Hawaii's rule for licensed concealed-carry holders at stores, restaurants, and other private property open to the public violates the Second Amendment when it requires the owner's express permission before entry. The case focused on whether the state could make that default rule a crime.

Impact

The decision limits Hawaii's ability to treat most public-facing private property as off-limits by default for licensed carriers. For example, a permit holder going into a restaurant or shop is no longer subject to that express-authorization rule alone.

What's next

Lower courts must apply the Supreme Court's decision in any remaining proceedings and in similar Second Amendment challenges. Hawaii officials will need to stop enforcing this rule as written and decide whether to revise the law.

What was the main dispute in Wolford v. Lopez?

The case asked whether Hawaii could treat stores, restaurants, and similar private businesses as off-limits to licensed carriers unless owners gave express permission.

What does this decision mean for people and businesses in Hawaii?

Licensed carriers cannot be barred by default from public-facing businesses under this rule alone. Business owners may still set their own policies.

What happens next after the Supreme Court's decision?

Lower courts must follow the decision in this case and related lawsuits. Hawaii must stop enforcing the invalid rule and consider changing its law.

Decision

Decision record

What the Court decided

States cannot make public-facing private property presumptively off-limits to licensed concealed carriers unless an owner gives express permission.

Result
Reversed

Impact

This affects Hawaii residents with concealed carry permits and businesses open to the public. The Court’s syllabus says the Ninth Circuit was reversed and the case was sent back. For example, a permit holder going to a gas station, restaurant, or store is affected by whether consent is presumed unless an owner withdraws it. Next, lower courts will apply this ruling while reconsidering Hawaii’s law. Similar public-carry rules in other states may face new challenges under Bruen.

Not official Court text.

Opinion documents

Timing

Decided June 25, 2026

The Court released its decision 156 days after oral argument on January 20, 2026. The median for cases argued in January is 127 days.

Based on 30 merits cases argued in January since 1995.Argument and decision days