The Supreme Court has completed its oral argument docket for the 2025-26 term with two Second Amendment cases that will test how lower courts apply the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, as judges nationwide continue to split on gun-related legal questions.
The justices will hear Wolford v. Lopez, examining whether a Hawaii law that presumptively prohibits carrying handguns on private property open to the public unless property owners have given consent violates the Second Amendment. In March, the court will also hear oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, addressing the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits firearm possession by individuals who are unlawful users of or addicted to controlled substances.
These cases emerge as courts struggle to implement the Bruen framework, which established a new test requiring courts to examine whether the plain text of the Second Amendment applies to challenged firearm conduct, and if so, whether government restrictions align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The current Second Amendment jurisprudence represents a relatively new development in Supreme Court case law. The modern era began less than 20 years ago with District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense. The court brought about another significant change in 2022 with Bruen, which formalized the text, history, and tradition test for Second Amendment cases.
Under the Bruen framework, courts must first determine whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the challenged firearm conduct. If it does, the government must demonstrate that laws restricting gun rights align with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation. This approach marked a departure from previous legal analysis methods for gun rights cases.
Since Bruen, the Supreme Court has decided only one other Second Amendment case: United States v. Rahimi. In that decision, an eight-justice majority upheld a federal statute that temporarily disarms individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. While Rahimi provided some guidance on conducting Bruen's historical analysis, lower courts have continued to struggle with implementing the framework consistently.
The upcoming cases may provide crucial guidance for litigants and lower courts on applying the history and tradition framework to Second Amendment challenges. However, numerous significant gun rights issues remain unaddressed by the high court.
In Wolford v. Lopez, the justices will examine Hawaii's approach to regulating firearms on private property that serves the public. The case tests how the Second Amendment applies when property owners have not explicitly consented to firearms on their premises, raising questions about the balance between property rights and gun rights.
United States v. Hemani presents a different constitutional challenge, focusing on federal restrictions that prohibit firearm possession by drug users. The case will require the court to determine whether such restrictions align with historical traditions of firearm regulation, particularly regarding individuals whose conduct may impair judgment or create safety risks.
These decisions could significantly impact how courts across the country evaluate Second Amendment challenges. The Bruen framework has created uncertainty among federal circuit courts, with different jurisdictions reaching varying conclusions on similar gun-related legal questions.
The court's approach to these cases will likely influence pending litigation involving other contentious Second Amendment issues that remain unresolved. Legal observers note that many significant gun rights questions continue to await Supreme Court review, suggesting the 2025-26 term cases may not be the final word on post-Bruen Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Both cases will test the justices' commitment to the historical analysis required under Bruen. The court will need to examine whether historical evidence supports or contradicts the challenged regulations, a process that has proven difficult for lower courts attempting to apply 18th and 19th-century legal traditions to modern firearm regulations.
The outcomes in Wolford and Hemani will provide important precedent for gun rights advocates and government attorneys arguing future Second Amendment cases. Lower courts have expressed frustration with the complexity of conducting historical analysis under Bruen, and clearer guidance from the Supreme Court could help resolve some of the current circuit splits on gun-related legal issues.
As the court prepares to hear these cases, the decisions will contribute to an evolving body of Second Amendment law that began with Heller's recognition of individual gun rights and continued with Bruen's emphasis on historical analysis. The 2025-26 term will mark another chapter in the Supreme Court's ongoing effort to define the scope and limits of constitutional gun rights in modern America.