The Supreme Court is once again poised to wade into the ever-contentious debate over gun rights, this time taking up a case that could have sweeping implications for how—and where—Americans can carry firearms in public spaces. On October 3, 2025, the high court announced it would review a Hawaii law that bars people with concealed carry permits from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public, unless they have explicit permission from the property owner. This move sets the stage for a landmark decision expected by July 2026, one that could reshape the balance between individual gun rights and property owners’ authority across the United States.
Hawaii’s 2023 legislation, at the heart of the dispute, was crafted in direct response to the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That earlier decision made it easier for Americans to obtain concealed carry permits by striking down New York’s requirement that applicants show “proper cause” to carry a handgun. In the wake of Bruen, several states—Hawaii included—revisited their own gun regulations, seeking ways to maintain restrictions in a legal landscape suddenly more favorable to gun owners.
The Hawaii law is notable for its breadth. It prohibits concealed carry permit holders from bringing handguns onto a wide array of so-called “sensitive” locations: beaches, playgrounds, parks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and more. But the provision now under Supreme Court scrutiny is the one that flips the presumption about guns on private property. Previously, someone with a permit could carry a handgun into, say, a grocery store or coffee shop unless the owner posted a sign explicitly prohibiting firearms. Under the new law, however, the default is reversed—guns are banned unless the property owner gives “express authorization,” either verbally or in writing.
Hawaii is not alone in this approach. According to the Trump administration and court filings, four other states—California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York—have enacted similar laws, requiring property owners to affirmatively allow firearms on their premises. The rationale, supporters say, is to respect the rights of property owners and the safety of the broader public. “This law respects people’s right to be safe on their own property, and we urge the Supreme Court to uphold it,” Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, told USA Today.
The legal challenge was brought in June 2023 by the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and three gun owners who had been issued concealed carry permits. They argue that the law, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding it, renders “illusory the right to carry in public.” Their lawyers warn that, because so few property owners post signs explicitly allowing or prohibiting guns, Hawaii’s restriction functions as a “near-complete ban on public carry.” In a filing to the Supreme Court, their legal team, joined by the Trump administration, wrote, “A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot.” The brief continued, “Yet, in the decision below, the Ninth Circuit upheld that rule against a Second Amendment challenge.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the gun owners, argued that the restriction is designed to impede, not protect, the exercise of Second Amendment rights. “In Hawaii, a person who carries a handgun for self-defense cannot run errands without the risk of running afoul of the law,” Sauer asserted. The Trump administration’s Department of Justice even drew a colorful analogy, noting that people could bring “bicycles, roller skates, protest banners, muddy shoes, dripping umbrellas, melting ice cream cones” into private stores without permission. “Only if someone wants to carry a gun must he obtain ‘express authorization’ under the arbitrary presumption that all property owners would view guns differently,” the DOJ argued.
Hawaii officials, however, see the law as a straightforward affirmation of property rights. They maintain that the Second Amendment “protects ‘an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,’” but “does not override a property owner’s fundamental right to exclude.” In their Supreme Court brief, Hawaii’s lawyers argued that anyone who wants to bring a gun into a store can simply ask the owner for oral permission. Anne Lopez, Hawaii’s attorney general, described the law as “a permissible effort to vindicate the rights of Hawai‘i’s citizens to exclude armed individuals from their private property.”
The legal journey has been winding. A federal district court in Hawaii initially blocked the state from enforcing the law, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, siding with the state. “Nothing in the text of the Second Amendment or otherwise suggests that a private property owner—even owners who open their private property to the public—must allow persons who bear arms to enter,” the appeals court wrote in a unanimous opinion, as reported by CBS News.
Underlying the case is the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to gun regulation. The 2022 Bruen decision established that gun laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That standard prompted a flurry of lawsuits challenging a wide range of gun restrictions, with federal judges suddenly tasked with parsing centuries-old historical records. Yet, in 2024, the Supreme Court seemed to temper its approach, upholding a federal law that bars domestic abusers from possessing firearms—even though such a law didn’t exist at the nation’s founding. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority that the United States does have a tradition of disarming “individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
The Hawaii case touches on more than just private property. It also implicates the broader effort by blue states to expand the definition of “sensitive places” where guns can be prohibited, such as bars, parks, and beaches. While the Supreme Court declined to take up a second question in the case that would have more directly addressed those provisions, the outcome of this case could influence how far states can go in restricting gun carry in public spaces.
This case is just one among several high-profile disputes the Supreme Court will consider in its new term, alongside cases dealing with executive power, transgender rights, and the future of voting rights protections. Arguments in the Hawaii gun case are expected early in 2026, with a decision likely by late June or early July. As the nation waits, both gun rights advocates and supporters of stricter regulations are bracing for a ruling that could redraw the boundaries of the Second Amendment—and the rights of property owners—across the country.
Where the court lands will almost certainly reverberate beyond Hawaii’s shores, setting a precedent for states wrestling with how to balance individual liberties and collective safety in an era when gun policy remains as divisive as ever.
