Can Hawaii ban gun carry on private property open to the public unless owners give consent?

Verified source milestones

1. 2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
2. 2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
3. 2026-08-29 — An official Court opinion was verified.
4. 2026-08-30 — An official Court opinion was verified.

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests how the Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public interacts with a property owner's traditional right to exclude people from private land. Hawaii's law requires express consent before a licensed carrier may bring a gun onto private property that is open to the public.

How the case got here

A lower court upheld Hawaii's law. the sides that brought the case asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision and strike the rule down. The state asked the Court to affirm the lower ruling.

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case: Alan Beck argued that Bruen protects the right to publicly carry firearms. He said Hawaii's consent requirement runs roughshod over that constitutional right.

the sides that brought the case: Ms. Harris contended that Hawaii cannot gut Bruen by presumptively banning licensed carriers from retail stores and other private property open to the public. She said the novel rule offends history and tradition, and that different common law traditions apply to property open to the public and property closed to it.

What each side says

The state: Mr. Katyal argued the case involves two fundamental rights, the right to bear arms and the property right to exclude. He said the parties largely agree on how those rights interact.

Justice Thomas questioned the sides that brought the case' claim that the law blocks access to about 97 percent of public areas, asking how they arrived at that figure.

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor pressed the sides that brought the case on whether the Constitution guarantees a right to carry a gun on private property.

Justice Sotomayor asked whether a custom permitting entry onto private property without the owner's express consent actually exists. She noted that under McKee, Justice Holmes looked for evidence that a practice prevailed in Missouri, the state where the suit originated. She said whether seashell collection was allowed depended on custom in that jurisdiction.

Why it matters

Justice Sotomayor also observed that much of Hawaii consists of state parks and state property. The Court's answer will shape whether states may condition gun carry on private land open to the public. Questions from the bench do not indicate votes.

What the Court decided

Hawaii's law banning licensed carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's express consent violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

• Official Court disposition document (date not established)

Title and summary sources

• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 125, lines 51-45 — Transcript, file page 125, lines 51-45
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 37-41
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-47
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 19-49
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 43-53 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 43-53
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 125, lines 51-45 — Transcript, file page 125, lines 51-45
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 37-41
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-47
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 19-49
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 43-53 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 43-53

Revision history

1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript · 2026-08-29 22:11:57.421986+00:00

   Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript · 2026-08-29 23:48:24.647394+00:00

   Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.

3. Revision 3 · Official Transcript · 2026-08-30 00:16:28.830933+00:00

   Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.

4. Revision 4 · Post Opinion · 2026-08-30 01:28:18.255534+00:00

   Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.

5. Revision 5 · Post Opinion · 2026-09-05 03:22:24+00:00

   Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.