By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court met on Thursday, June 18, to discuss cases, and it announced a decision in United States v. Hemani, and on June 25, it announced the Wolford v. Lopez decision. On June 30, certiorari was granted in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—two AW bans!
SCOTUS
June ended with two wins in Court, and then certiorari was granted in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Lamont—two AW bans!!
June 30—Christmas came early for gun owners
Certiorari was granted in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—two AW bans in one package, both cases brought by the Second Amendment Foundation!
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the last day of the 2025-2026 Court session, in Viramontes v. Cook County (7th Cir.) and Grant v. Higgins (2nd Cir.), directly addressing whether states and local governments can ban AR‑15s and other common semi‑automatic rifles consistent with the Second Amendment. Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), who reviews current cases, predicts a pro‑Second Amendment majority opinion—likely written by Justice Kavanaugh—that will consider AR‑15s as “arms” in common use and therefore categorically protected from bans, with implications for ongoing “assault weapon” and magazine‑capacity lawsuits in jurisdictions like Illinois, New York, and California. Let’s hope this prediction proves correct.
(Read more in Tuesday’s story by TGM Editor Dave Workman.)
The Supreme Court will, for the first time, directly decide whether bans on AR‑15 and other semi‑automatic rifles comply with the Second Amendment, creating significant doctrinal and practical uncertainty until rulings are issued.
Merits briefing and argument are expected during the 2026–27 term, with decisions likely by June 2027. In the meantime, many related “assault weapon” and magazine-capacity cases may be stayed or held pending guidance from Viramontes and Grant.
Gun owners in areas with existing bans (including Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, and others) should not assume any specific outcome but should begin planning for two possibilities: (1) continued enforcement of current laws, and (2) potential invalidation or narrowing of those laws.
Calendar: The next term, 2026-2027, begins on Oct. 1, but the first conference will be Sept. 28, and the first orders announcement is scheduled for Oct. 1.
On June 18, the decision on the United States v. Hemani was announced.
United States v. Hemani, No. 24‑1234 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), Date: June 18, 2026. Justice Neil Gorsuch
Wrote the Decision
On June 18, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) to a Texas man who used marijuana “every other day” violated the Second Amendment as applied, confirming the dismissal of his indictment.
Analysis
Following the SCOTUS Hemani ruling, several articles have discussed its implications, and I expect many more debates on this important decision. On Scotusblog.com, two different commentaries have already been published: “Hemani: proving the reason, not just naming it” by Stephanie Barclay, and “A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts” by Joel Johnson, a professor at Pepperdine School of Law, who filed an amicus brief. Johnson had previously published an article on SCOTUSblog about the vagueness of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
Barclay’s blog provides a lengthy summary of Justice Gorsuch’s decision, and is worth reading. However, Johnson’s article offers an in-depth discussion of his January article and how the Court has not yet decided the question of “drug usage” and firearms. Although Johnson sought clarity from the Court in his amicus, and did not receive it, this paragraph expresses his satisfaction with the outcome.
Does any of this make a difference? As a practical matter, the court’s result is close to what my approach would have produced. My proposed construction of the statute drew one clear line – that the statute reaches those intoxicated while armed, and no one else. The majority, by contrast, declined to construe the statute at all. It concluded that the Second Amendment prevented Hemani’s prosecution and went out of its way to stress that its decision was “narrow.” The court made clear, for example, that its opinion did not address the possibility of disarming “addicts” or “those presently intoxicated,” a prosecution under Section 922(g)(3) backed by “individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others,” or disarmament under a separate provision concerning convicted felons. But again, for Hemani and other marijuana users prosecuted on the same theory, the practical result is identical to what I sought.
Once again, Mark W. Smith’s video (The Four Boxes Diner on youtube.com) is the key educational source for gun owner litigation. He posted two videos, one on June 18 and another on June 22. The June 22nd video is an excellent class on how 2A litigators should use Hemani in cases involving state red flag laws, and it also teaches how to read court opinions.
In this video, Smith analyzes the Justice Neil Gorsuch decision so that even non-lawyers can understand the intended meaning behind the words. I have reviewed this video so everyone can watch it carefully.
The Hemani Ruling: SCOTUS unanimously held that merely being an unlawful drug user does not automatically forfeit your Second Amendment rights — the government must prove more.
The Rahimi Foundation
The Court’s analysis referenced the case of U.S. v. Rahimi, where SCOTUS ruled that only a person “found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be temporarily disarmed, in accordance with the Second Amendment.
Pre-Deprivation Process: The Core of Hemani*
The Court in Hemani heavily emphasized that historically, individuals could only lose liberties after some form of legal proceeding—such as a conviction, probate court, or a justice of the peace hearing—not automatically. However, red flag laws that seize guns first and allow you to contest later are the opposite.
Individualized Dangerousness Determination Required
The Court explicitly asked whether Hemani’s marijuana use truly made him dangerous to anyone. Therefore, disarmament requires a specific, individualized finding that you are a physical danger — not a blanket assumption based on drug use or any other status. The Court repeatedly emphasized that the only constitutionally acceptable basis for disarmament is a proven, specific threat of physical violence to oneself or others — not mere prohibition offenses or speculative risk.
Practical Takeaways for 2A Litigators
Smith concludes by advising attorneys challenging red flag orders in blue states to cite Hemani for two main reasons: (1) that a pre-deprivation process is constitutionally necessary before guns are taken, and (2) that there must be an individualized, evidence-based finding of dangerousness — neither of which most red flag laws meet.
On June 25, 2026, the decision on Wolford v. Lopez was announced
Wolford v. Lopez: Case No. No. 24-1046. Argued on January 20, 2026, Justice Samuel Alito
Decision: The Vampire Rule Is Dead
Note: This summary draws on discussion videos by Mark W. Smith and William Kirk of Washington Gun Law.
- The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Wolford v. Lopez that Hawaii’s “vampire rule”—which requires licensed concealed-carry holders to obtain explicit permission from private property owners before entering any publicly accessible business—violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Legal scholars are already calling Wolford the most significant Second Amendment decision since Bruen.
What Hawaii Got Wrong
Hawaii’s law upended centuries of common law. Usually, a licensed carrier can enter any property open to the public unless the owner explicitly forbids it. Hawaii changed that by requiring explicit permission just to walk through the door — which the Court found effectively bans carrying in public altogether. The opinion also warns privately owned venues such as museums, concert halls, and restaurants: blanket gun-free zones declared by the state, not the property owner, may not hold up under constitutional review.
The Spirit of Aloha Argument Falls Flat
Hawaii argued that its deep cultural aversion to firearms—the “Spirit of Aloha”—justifies a different constitutional standard, citing gun restrictions dating back to King Kamehameha III in 1833. Alito wasn’t convinced, reaffirming McDonald v. City of Chicago: the Second Amendment means the same in all 50 states, and local customs can’t diminish it. The Court also dismissed one of Hawaii’s Reconstruction-era historical examples as a “tainted artifact”—a Black Code law meant to disarm freed Black Americans—making clear that a historical precedent must be legitimate and widely accepted to be relevant.
The Rules Just Got Clearer
Wolford provides the clearest roadmap yet for how Second Amendment cases should be argued. Courts must first determine whether a law burdens ordinary people’s ability to keep or carry firearms — plain and simple, without historical digressions. Only if the answer is yes does the government then have the opportunity to justify the law through history, and that burden lies entirely with them. Justice Barrett’s concurrence points out several federal appeals courts by name for quietly shifting that burden back onto gun owners — a practice she says must end.
What Changes Next
The ripple effects extend well beyond concealed carry. Under Wolford‘s framework, the government must demonstrate at the historical stage that a firearm isn’t typically used for lawful purposes — it can’t bypass the analysis by claiming the weapon falls outside Second Amendment protection altogether. This makes it much more difficult for lower courts to categorically exclude AR-pattern rifles or standard-capacity magazines from constitutional coverage. Expect many pending assault weapons and magazine ban cases to be sent back to lower courts for a new review. Wolford isn’t just a victory for concealed-carry permit holders — it redefines the rules for Second Amendment challenges across the board.
