Justices Take Up Second Amendment Case Over Hawaii's 'Affirmative Consent' Law

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether Hawaii can put the burden on handgun owners to obtain "affirmative consent" from a property owner before carrying firearms on their property.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday added a major Second Amendment case to its upcoming October 2025 term, agreeing to review whether Hawaii can require gun owners to obtain consent before carrying firearms on someone else's private property.
 
The case, Wolford v. Lopez, could further expand the Second Amendment right of individuals to carry guns in public, including on property that is privately owned but otherwise open to the public.
 
The Supreme Court famously held in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller that states cannot ban individuals from keeping handguns in the home. In the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court said the Second Amendment also protects the right of people to carry handguns in public for self-defense.
 
Under Hawaii's law, individuals may not carry firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner gives “[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization” or "clear and conspicuous signage.”
 
Hawaii's affirmative consent law was challenged by Maui residents with concealed carry permits who say it renders "illusory" the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public.
 
The law was sustained by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found similar historical regulations of people carrying guns on private property.
 
The decision inspired a dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a staunch ally of gun rights, who complained that “Hawaii’s law prohibits, presumptively or outright, the carrying of a handgun on 96.4% of the publicly accessible land in Maui County,” and has “effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians."
 
In a Supreme Court petition filed in April, the gun owners, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, said the Ninth Circuit decision created a split with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which struck down similar legislation from New York.
Hawaii had urged the justices to pass on the case, saying the issue of affirmative consent laws has "just begun to percolate" in the lower courts. Hawaii added that the case was still in the preliminary injunction stage, and that the lower courts have yet to finally decide the fate of the state's law.
 
Since the Bruen decision, lower courts have grappled with how to judge the constitutionality of state firearm regulations under the Supreme Court's new requirement that they be rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
 
In U.S. v. Rahimi, the high court last year upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to a domestic restraining order from possessing firearms after a conservative federal appeals court found there was no historical analog for the statute in early American history.
 
The court has been beset with calls from gun rights groups to take up new Second Amendment cases and expand the rights of firearm owners, including by appeals challenging bans on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines.
 
The Hawaii case is so far the only Second Amendment appeal on the high court's docket for the October 2025 term, which features a host of other hot-button topics, from transgender issues and voting rights to challenges to Trump administration policies.
 
The court has yet to set oral arguments in Wolford. A decision is expected by June.
 
The gun owners are represented by California attorney Alan A. Beck.
 
Hawaii is represented by Neal Katyal of Milbank.