Gun Rights Win: SCOTUS Limits States' Power to Restrict Concealed Carry

The United States Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that could have a widespread impact on the Second Amendment rights of many Americans.

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3, along conservative and liberal lines, that Hawaii's law requiring gun owners to obtain express permission before carrying firearms on most private property open to the public violates the Second Amendment, finding it placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to carry weapons for self-defense.

The decision immediately blocks enforcement of the law and threatens similar restrictions in states like New York, California and New Jersey, potentially expanding where licensed gun owners can carry in everyday public settings.

The case was backed by the Trump administration while it was being litigated, with the Department of Justice filing a brief supporting the challengers and arguing Hawaii's law violated the Second Amendment.

What Is Wolford v. Lopez?

At the center of Wolford v. Lopez was a Hawaii law that made it illegal for licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms onto private property open to the public, such as stores, restaurants and gas stations, unless the property owner explicitly gives permission.

Gun-rights advocates argued the policy effectively nullified the constitutional right to carry weapons for self-defense recognized in the court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. They said the measure turned everyday locations into "no-carry" zones, making it nearly impossible to exercise that right in practice.

State officials, however, countered that the law reflected long-established principles of property rights, arguing that business owners should decide whether firearms are allowed on their premises.

The legal fight began in 2023 after Hawaii enacted its new gun restrictions in response to Bruen. Gun owners and advocacy groups quickly challenged the law in federal court, and a district judge initially blocked parts of it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later allowed much of the law to take effect, including the provision requiring permission for carrying firearms on private property open to the public.

That ruling helped create a broader legal conflict, as other federal courts have taken different approaches to similar laws. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in October 2025, setting up a major test of its own recent Second Amendment precedent.

The justices heard oral arguments on January 20, 2026.

How Did the Supreme Court Rule?

The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's law that barred licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless the owner explicitly allowed it.

The dispute emerged as a key test of how far states can go in regulating firearms after Bruen, which significantly expanded protections for public carry.

During arguments, several conservative justices appeared skeptical of Hawaii's approach. Justice Samuel Alito suggested the law treats the Second Amendment as a "second-class" right, while Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why individuals would need permission to carry a firearm into a business when other constitutional rights do not face similar barriers.

At the same time, liberal justices signaled concerns about expanding gun rights into privately owned spaces. Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised questions about whether the Constitution has ever been understood to guarantee a right to carry a firearm onto someone else's property without consent.

The divide reflects a broader tension in the case: whether it should primarily be understood as a gun-rights dispute or a property-rights question

Which States Currently Have Laws Prohibiting Concealed Carry?

No state bans concealed carry outright, but a handful effectively restrict it in most public-facing private spaces.

In states with default ban-style laws, including New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii, carrying a concealed firearm on private property open to the public, such as stores and restaurants, is generally illegal unless the owner explicitly allows it.

Which States Are Impacted by the Decision?

In the Wolford case, a handful of states could be directly impacted.

• Directly at issue: Hawaii, where the case originated.
• Closely tied/likely affected: California
• Similar laws at risk or protected depending on the ruling:
  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Maryland
• Broader impact: Could reshape concealed-carry rules nationwide

Unlike Wolford v. Lopez, which could reshape gun-carry laws in a handful of states, United States v. Hemani has nationwide implications. The case centers on a federal law that applies in all 50 states, barring firearm possession by anyone deemed an "unlawful user" of controlled substances.

The impact may be especially pronounced in states where marijuana is legal under state law but remains illegal federally, creating a conflict that leaves millions of Americans potentially subject to federal prosecution for owning a gun.

What Is the United States v. Hemani Case?

The court also issued a decision last week related to gun control and the Second Amendment. At the center of Hemani is a federal law dating back decades that makes it a crime for anyone who is an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance to possess a firearm.

The defendant, Ali Danial Hemani, was charged after federal agents found a handgun in his home along with marijuana and cocaine. Prosecutors did not claim he was intoxicated at the time he possessed the firearm, but argued that his status as a regular drug user alone was enough to trigger the prohibition.

Hemani challenged the charge, arguing that the law violates the Second Amendment-particularly when applied to individuals who are not actively impaired. Lower courts sided with him, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the Constitution does not support disarming someone solely because of past or ongoing drug use if they are otherwise law-abiding and sober.

The Biden administration appealed, arguing that there is a long historical tradition of banning firearm possession by individuals considered dangerous, including those impaired by drugs.

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices held that applying a longstanding federal law to Hemani based solely on his admitted marijuana use violated the U.S. Constitution.

The Hemani case placed the Trump administration in an unusual position. While it has aggressively promoted gun rights and challenged state-level restrictions, its Justice Department has urged the Supreme Court to uphold a federal law banning firearm possession by drug users.

The statute applies even to marijuana users in states where the drug is legal, and a ruling against the government could weaken federal authority to disarm entire categories of people. Taken alongside Wolford v. Lopez, which focuses on where guns can be carried, the cases together highlight a central tension in the administration's approach: expanding access to firearms while maintaining some limits on who can legally possess them.

What Happens Next

Together, these cases are likely to shape the next chapter of Second Amendment law, defining not just the scope of the right to carry firearms, but also its limits.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published June 25, 2026 at 8:22 AM.