October Term 2025
No. 24-1046

Wolford v. Lopez

Petitioner Jason Wolford · Respondent Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii

From
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
How it got here
writ of <i>certiorari</i>

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?

Question before the Court

What happened

In 2023, Hawaii and California enacted new laws, Act 52 and Senate Bill 2, respectively, that significantly restrict the public carry of firearms. Both laws prohibit individuals with carry permits from bringing firearms into numerous specified “sensitive places.” Hawaii’s list includes fifteen categories, such as bars, restaurants serving alcohol, parks, beaches, and banks. California’s list is broader, covering more than two dozen types of property, including hospitals, public transit, playgrounds, libraries, museums, places of worship, and casinos. Both states also changed the default rule for private property open to the public, generally banning firearms unless the property owner expressly permits them. Hawaii allows owners to consent verbally, in writing, or via a posted sign. California’s rule is stricter, permitting consent only through the posting of a specific, state-mandated sign. Plaintiffs in both states include individuals who hold concealed-carry permits and various gun-rights organizations. They filed lawsuits alleging that these new restrictions violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs in both actions sued their respective state attorneys general, and federal district courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of many of the new provisions. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consolidated the cases, affirming the injunctions in part but reversing them in large part. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling allowed many of the challenged restrictions to remain in effect but agreed with the district courts that the states could not, for example, ban firearms in banks or hospitals.

Pending
with the majority concurring in dissent recused filed an opinion

The holding

Argued by

For the petitioner
  • Alan A. Beck for the Petitioners
  • Sarah M. Harris for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners
For the respondent
  • Neal Kumar Katyal for the Respondent

Case path

  1. Oct 3, 2025 granted
  2. Jan 20, 2026 argued