Supreme Court Expands 2nd Amendment Rights, Eyes More Gun Cases

Supreme Court Issues Rulings Limiting State and Federal Gun Restrictions, Considers Further Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings that limit the application of certain state and federal gun laws, as the justices consider whether to review additional challenges involving firearms restrictions for the term beginning in October.

In a 6-3 decision on Thursday, the court invalidated a Hawaii statute requiring individuals to obtain permission from property owners before carrying a handgun onto private land open to the public, including many businesses. The majority opinion relied on the conservative justices. Last week, the court unanimously narrowed the scope of a long-standing federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by certain drug users, reducing its reach for individuals who use marijuana.

These decisions came amid ongoing public debate over firearms violence and mass shootings. The rulings applied a historical-tradition standard established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, under which gun regulations must align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation to satisfy Second Amendment requirements.

Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law professor Jacob Charles stated that the two cases demonstrate the court's skepticism toward many gun regulations, particularly newer ones. He added that the test developed by the court makes it difficult for legislatures to enact certain gun laws.

The decisions were released near the conclusion of the court's term that began in October 2025. Gun rights organizations have urged the justices to accept more Second Amendment cases for the upcoming term. On Thursday, the court held its private conference to review pending petitions, including challenges to state laws restricting assault-style rifles such as AR-15s and large-capacity magazines. Those petitions could be granted as early as Monday.

Stephen Stamboulieh, an attorney for Gun Owners of America, said the court should enforce its prior precedents against such restrictions and address what he described as resistance by lower courts. When the Supreme Court declined similar appeals last year, three conservative justices dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh separately noted sympathy for arguments that AR-15s are in common use by law-abiding citizens and indicated the court would likely address the issue.

The court is also weighing a challenge to a federal prohibition on licensed dealers selling handguns to adults under 21, along with comparable state provisions.

In the recent cases, the court followed the Bruen framework rather than a means-end scrutiny approach. In the 2024 decision U.S. v. Rahimi, an 8-1 majority upheld a federal law barring individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, finding it consistent with historical tradition.

David Kopel of the Independence Institute observed that the Rahimi outcome turned on the dangerousness of domestic abusers, distinguishing it from the plaintiffs in the Hawaii and drug-user cases, whom he described as peaceable. He noted that historical traditions identified in Bruen support a dangerousness criterion for disarmament.

Hawaii officials had argued that their law balanced the right to bear arms with property owners' interests in excluding firearms. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Hawaii case, contending that the majority had applied the Bruen test in a manner that overrides legislative choices favoring firearm restrictions.

Charles stated that the court's approach has placed the Second Amendment on a higher footing than other constitutional rights. The two rulings leave in place the Bruen test as the governing standard for evaluating gun regulations at the Supreme Court level.

The justices' conference also included petitions concerning the federal age restriction on handgun sales by licensed dealers. Lower courts have reached differing conclusions on whether such limits comply with the Second Amendment under the historical-tradition analysis. Several states have maintained restrictions on magazine capacity and certain semiautomatic rifles, with litigation continuing in multiple circuits.

Advocates on both sides of the issue have filed amicus briefs in the pending cases, presenting data on firearm ownership patterns and historical statutes from the founding era through the 19th century. The court has not yet indicated which, if any, of the new petitions it will grant. A decision on the docket is expected by early July.

The Bruen decision itself replaced a two-part test previously used by most federal courts, which had examined whether a regulation served an important government interest and was substantially related to that interest. The 2022 ruling directed courts to focus instead on whether modern laws are consistent with the historical record of firearm regulation.

In the Hawaii matter, the state had defended its property-owner consent requirement as analogous to historical trespass and nuisance laws. The majority found no sufficiently similar tradition and struck down the provision. The drug-user ruling similarly limited enforcement of the federal statute to individuals actively engaged in conduct that historically justified disarmament.

These developments leave open the possibility that the court will add one or more gun cases to its October 2026 docket, potentially including review of assault-weapon or magazine restrictions. The outcome of any such cases would further define the boundaries of the Bruen test.