Among the major decisions expected this year from the Supreme Court is a case from Hawaii that would clarify when and where people with gun-ownership permits can possess firearms in publicly accessible private locations.
In 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a divided 6-3 Court, struck down a New York state law that required a person to prove a special self-protection need to carry a licensed concealed firearm outside their residence or business. In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said that consistent with the Court’s precedents, “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Justice Thomas noted that 43 states have “shall issue” permit laws based on applicants meeting basic objective criteria such as age, background check, and criminal history requirements. New York, six other states, and the District of Columbia have “may issue” requirements that demand proof of a special need beyond basic objective criteria to carry a concealed handgun outside of a home or business.
The Bruen decision also held that precedent showed that carrying arms in “sensitive places” such as legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses could be restricted. But any government seeking regulations beyond the objective criteria used in most states needs to prove a tradition of similar restrictions that existed as the basis for new laws.
The Hawaii Case Presents a New Test
In the wake of the Bruen decision, Hawaii passed a new law in 2023, Act 52, that defined how it could regulate the use of concealed carry permits. The new law criminally prohibited a person with a concealed carry permit from bringing a handgun onto private property open to the public unless the property owner consented. Examples of such locations included bars, restaurants serving alcohol, parks, and banks, in addition to the sensitive areas defined in Bruen.
In Wolford v. Lopez, three individuals and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition sued the state of Hawaii. The group alleged that Hawaii’s law conflicted with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in Antonyuk v. James (2024), a decision that struck down a state law like the Hawaii ban. The Ninth Circuit upheld most of the Hawaii law. The Supreme Court then accepted the case on Oct. 3, 2025, to consider the split between the two federal courts.
Link: Read the Arguments Transcript
During arguments on Jan. 20, 2026, the majority of the justices questioned the logic behind the Hawaii bans and the property-owned consent provision labeled as a “vampire rule” (based on folklore and the novel Dracula that states someone must invite a vampire into a residence or room for it to enter a property). In most other states, the owner of a concealed gun permit can enter many private properties without informing owners they are carrying a gun legally unless asked.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Neal Katyal, who was representing the state of Hawaii, on how rules about property-owner consent presented First Amendment and Second Amendment conflicts. “You said part of the history and tradition is there’s no right to enter private property without the owner’s consent, right?” Roberts asked Katyal, who agreed with the Chief Justice. “I don't have to have a sign on the sidewalk before you enter my property saying okay to come on if you’re going to give me some leaflet or okay to come on if you’re a candidate.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the state decision to cite a Reconstruction-era law from Louisiana that suppressed Black rights as supporting Hawaii’s case about gun restrictions. “You rely very heavily on an 1865 black code law in Louisiana. You say it’s a dead ringer and a reason alone to affirm the judgment. And I really want to understand how that could be,” he asked Katyal.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posed a different point. “Bruen gave rise to the need for clarity about property owners. Once Bruen said you can carry the gun outside of your home and there was an alternative well-established principle that private property owners can exclude people, I think the states were trying to make sure that property owners had the opportunity to do that.”
A Similar Gun Rights Case in Maryland
On the same day, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided a similar case, Kikpe v. Moore. Maryland is a state, like Hawaii, which passed new legislation after Bruen that expanded the list of what it considered a “sensitive place” where concealed carry was not allowed.
The Maryland law prohibited guns in government buildings; mass transit facilities and vehicles; school grounds; public demonstrations (and areas within 1,000 feet thereof); state parks and forests; healthcare facilities; places of amusement, including museums, stadiums, racetracks, video lottery facilities, amusement parks, and casinos; locations that sell alcohol; and private property.
A divided three-panel court upheld bans for most of the locations cited in the new law, with one exception. “We hold that Maryland’s prohibition on carrying guns on private property held open to the public is unconstitutional,” it said.
All three judges concurred on the private property ruling. “Maryland’s prohibition is directed at gun owners, not property owners,” wrote Judge Roger Gregory. “It is a criminal statute that nowhere references the right of the property owner to exclude a gun owner.”
Gregory added that “Maryland’s reliance on the trespass tradition is inapposite,” and it disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s “default rules that apply specifically to the carrying of firearms onto private property.”
The Fourth Circuit also determined the historical laws cited by the state of Maryland as supporting their case, including a 1771 New Jersey statute and the 1865 Louisiana statute (cited in Wolford v. Lopez) were outliers. “Maryland’s rule would effectively declare most public places ‘gun-free zones.’ But that likely stretches the sensitive places doctrine too far,” Gregory concluded.
Judge Steve Agee disagreed specifically with upholding the ban on concealed carry within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration. “Maryland has not come forward with evidence that—at the Founding—States enacted measures prohibiting firearms at public demonstrations. On the contrary, the historical record reflects quite the opposite,” he concluded.
For now, a decision in Wolford v. Lopez is expected by late June 2026, and the Court’s holding will likely impact any appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision in Kipke v. Moore. The decision could offer a more defined ruling on the sensitive areas doctrine from Bruen, and rights of property owners and handgun owners alike.
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.
