By Tanya Metaksa
ANALYSIS: WOLFORD V. LOPEZ – SUPREME COURT CASE
Hearing: Jan. 20, 2026
Wolford v. Lopez analyzes Hawaii’s post-Bruen regime, which generally prohibits licensed carriers from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public without the owner’s explicit consent. Petitioners argue that this default rule effectively nullifies the public-carry right recognized in Bruen and unfairly relies on racially biased Black Code-era analogues, such as a 1865 Louisiana law.
MAJOR PUBLISHED COMMENTARY PIECES
1. SCOTUSblog – “Four answers to the justices in Wolford v. Lopez” (Akhil & Vikram Amar)
Provides a structured response to four common questions from skeptical justices, asserting that Hawaii’s default rule treats the Second Amendment like other rights. The authors emphasize that property owners’ consent norms and comparisons to speech rights support the law’s constitutionality under Bruen’s history-and-tradition framework.
2. Cornell Legal Information Institute – Supreme Court Bulletin for Wolford v. Lopez
Offers a neutral merits preview summarizing the Hawaii statute, the challengers’ claim that the default rule effectively eliminates meaningful public carry, and the conflicting historical narratives under Bruen.
3. Duke Center for Firearms Law – “Presumed Intent: Wolford, Property Default Flips, and an Unlikely Precedent.”
Places Hawaii’s law within a broader tradition of legislatures changing default rules to match presumed intent, comparing it to Sveen v. Melin and the Contracts Clause.
4. Independent Institute – “Wolford and the Government Security Principle for Sensitive Places.”
Frames Wolford as a means to explain the “sensitive places” doctrine, even though the case involves locations Hawaii has not yet declared entirely gun-free.
5. Everytown for Gun Safety – “What to Know About Wolford v. Lopez”
Presents a pro-regulation perspective emphasizing that the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law as a modest, consent-based default that respects both property rights and public safety.
ANALYSIS WITH BIAS
1. Bloomberg Opinion – “This Supreme Court gun case isn’t getting enough attention.”
Contends Wolford is a sleeper case with significant implications for day-to-day regulation of public carry, even if most observers expect the Hawaii law to be struck down.
2. National Review – “Hawaii’s Shocking Legal Argument Against the Second Amendment.”
Criticizes Hawaii’s stance for treating the Second Amendment as a “second-class” right by allowing silence from property owners to function as a ban on carrying.
3. Balls & Strikes – “Wolford v Lopez: The Supreme Court’s History and Tradition Test Reaches Its Limit.”
Highlights Hawaii’s reliance on an 1865 Louisiana law with racial biases, focusing on exchanges between Justices Jackson and Alito about whether laws from the Black Codes era can be considered part of “history and tradition.”
4. New York Times – “Majority of Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Hawaii Gun Law”
Suggests most justices are likely to side with the challengers, framing the case as a conflict between gun rights and property or collective safety interests.
KEY ARGUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
Plaintiffs argue that Hawaii’s default rule “impermissibly flips the Second Amendment so that firearm carry is prohibited unless a private property owner consents, rather than allowing firearm carry unless a private property owner prohibits it.”
They stress that the rule “effectively strips permit holders of the ability to keep and bear arms in ordinary public life,” limiting meaningful carry mainly to streets and sidewalks.
SIGNALS POINTING TO A PLAINTIFF VICTORY
The hearing strongly indicated that a majority of the Court is ready to strike down Hawaii’s default no-carry rule.
Comments from Conservative Justices:
– Justice Kavanaugh stated that under Bruen, the case should be “easy” because there is “no sufficient history supporting the regulation. End of case.”
– Justice Alito told Hawaii’s counsel, “You’re just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.”
– Chief Justice Roberts questioned why the state can change the default for guns but not for other rights, implying constitutional issues.
– Justice Gorsuch criticized Hawaii’s reliance on the Louisiana Black-Code law as “quite an astonishing claim” and called it “the height of irony to cite a law that was enacted for exactly the purpose of preventing someone from exercising the Second Amendment right.”
Finally, regarding historical validation, they criticized the 1865 Louisiana law, which was part of the Black Codes aimed at disarming newly freed Black citizens, and the 1771 New Jersey statute, a hunting/trespass measure on land closed to the public.
