Guns in stores and restaurants
Wolford v. Lopez
In brief
Hawaii's express-authorization requirement for licensed concealed carry on private property open to the public violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 25, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Hawaii cannot make licensed concealed-carry permit holders obtain a property owner’s express permission before carrying a handgun onto private property open to the public, such as stores and restaurants.
- Who it affects
- Licensed permit holders may carry handguns into places such as stores and restaurants that are open to the public without first getting express authorization. Private owners may still decide whether to allow firearms on their property.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court held that this rule violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and reversed the Ninth Circuit.
The case addresses how the Second and Fourteenth Amendments limit state restrictions on carrying handguns in publicly accessible private businesses.
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?
What the Court decided
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
What's next
The Ninth Circuit will take further action consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. Hawaii officials and affected businesses must account for the decision when applying the challenged carry restriction.
Docket activity
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - A
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Wolford
Argued. For petitioners: Alan A. Beck, San Diego, Cal.; and Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Wolford v. Lopez?
- The Court ruled that Hawaii's express-authorization rule for licensed concealed carry on private property open to the public violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Who is affected by the Wolford v. Lopez decision?
- Licensed concealed-carry permit holders, store and restaurant owners, and Hawaii law-enforcement officials are directly affected. Businesses can still decide whether firearms are allowed on their property.
- What happens next after Wolford v. Lopez?
- The case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. Hawaii officials must apply the Court's decision to the challenged restriction.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.