Wolford v. Lopez
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Wolford v. Lopez and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Wolford v. Lopez.
In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court addressed a Hawaii law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner's express consent. The Court found that this law imposes a significant burden on the Second Amendment right to carry arms for self-defense, as recognized in previous cases. The decision reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, emphasizing the uniform application of the Second Amendment across the United States.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Wolford v. Lopez.
The Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Wolford v. Lopez. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Wolford v. Lopez
The case involves the application of the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, implicating substantive due process rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Second Amendment right applies equally to the Federal Government and the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Why Equal Protection is relevant to Wolford v. Lopez
The case discusses uniform application of the Second Amendment across different states, touching on equal protection principles.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Second Amendment cannot give way to 'the spirit of Aloha' in Hawaii... Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Wolford v. Lopez that support the summary and concepts above.
Hawaii’s new rule imposes severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the State’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit.
The Second Amendment cannot give way to “the spirit of Aloha” in Hawaii, contra, State v. Wilson, 154 Haw. 8, 27, 543 P. 3d 440, 459.
Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues do not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.