The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Hawaii can bar handguns on private property open to the public unless the owner gives "express authorization," including by signage. The appeal was brought by three licensed Hawaii residents and a Honolulu gun-rights group and is backed by the Trump administration. The case tests how the Court's 2022 Bruen decision — requiring laws to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation — applies to modern public spaces. Lower courts issued mixed rulings, and a decision could shape state gun rules nationwide.
Supreme Court To Weigh Challenge To Hawaii Handgun Carry Limits — Bruen Test At Stake
FILE PHOTO: A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 9, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public unless the property owner gives "express authorization." The case raises questions about how the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision — which requires firearms laws to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of regulation — should be applied to modern public spaces.
What The Law Does
Hawaii's statute bars people from bringing handguns onto private property that is open to the public, such as most businesses, unless the owner provides express authorization. That authorization may be verbal or written, and the law recognizes "clear and conspicuous signage" as sufficient notice to disallow firearms.
The Challenge
The appeal was brought by three Hawaii residents who hold concealed-carry licenses and a Honolulu-based gun-rights group. They sued weeks after Democratic Governor Josh Green signed the measure into law in 2023, arguing it violates the Second Amendment. The challengers lost in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal judge initially issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement.
Federal Government's Position
Department of Justice lawyers, representing the Trump administration, told the Court the law "deprives individuals who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights of their ability to go about their daily lives." The DOJ argued that the statute can prevent routine activities such as getting coffee, buying groceries or refueling a car if those tasks require stepping onto private property that bars firearms.
Legal Context And Stakes
The case directly invokes New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), in which the Supreme Court held that carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment and established a history-and-tradition test for evaluating gun restrictions. Under Bruen, modern regulations must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," rather than judged only by whether they serve an important government interest.
The Court has recently broadened Second Amendment protections in a series of decisions (notably in 2008, 2010 and 2022). It also upheld, by an 8-1 margin in 2024, a federal law banning gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders under the Bruen framework. Observers say the Hawaii case could have wide implications for how states regulate firearms on privately owned properties that are open to the public.
What’s Next
Oral arguments are scheduled for the current term. The ruling will test how vigorously the Bruen standard must be applied to state and local restrictions that balance public safety and property-owner control. In March, the Court is also slated to hear a separate case in which the federal government defends a law barring illegal drug users from possessing firearms.
Help us improve.
