Key Takeaways
- Three U.S. Supreme Court developments in firearms law will likely reshape the landscape for years.
- The Court unanimously held that the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on firearm possession by marijuana users, as applied to the defendant, was unconstitutional.
- In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that Hawaii’s “vampire rule” requiring express permission to carry concealed firearms on private property open to the public was unconstitutional, reinforcing rigorous application of the Bruen framework.
- The Court granted certiorari on two cases challenging semiautomatic rifle restrictions, with a decision expected in June 2027 that could reshape state and local regulations.
Three major U.S. Supreme Court developments in firearms law occurred in the final two weeks of the term — two decisions and a grant of certiorari — that are likely to reshape the landscape of permissible firearms regulation for years to come.
First, on June 18, 2026, the Court decided United States v. Hemani, holding 9-0 that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the provision of the Gun Control Act that makes it unlawful for “an unlawful user of” a controlled substance to possess a firearm or ammunition — was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, Ali Hemani. Police recovered both marijuana and a Glock handgun during a search of Mr. Hemani’s home, and he admitted to using marijuana about every other day. Mr. Hemani argued that § 922(g)(3) violated his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch applied the analytical framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and rejected the government’s attempt to justify § 922(g)(3)’s application against Mr. Hemani by appealing to historical habitual-drunkard laws. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan concurred in the judgment on narrower grounds. The Court expressly did not address whether a prosecution under § 922(g)(3) would be permissible if the government could make a showing that a defendant’s use of a controlled substance made him a danger to himself or others.
This decision raises questions for firearms and ammunition retailers about the continued viability of the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on transferring firearms and ammunition to marijuana users. The ATF has announced that it is working on the issue and will be announcing guidance in the near future.
Second, on June 25, 2026, the Court decided Wolford v. Lopez, striking down Hawaii’s statute that prohibited citizens from carrying concealed firearms onto private property that is open to the public, such as a store, without the express permission of the owner. The Court held that this statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Hawaii passed the law in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, in which the Court held that the issuance of a concealed handgun permit could not be conditioned on a showing of “good cause.” Hawaii’s rule reversed the common-law presumption that a person is free to enter private property open to the public while armed unless forbidden to do so. The law has been colloquially referred to as the “vampire rule,” a reference to the legend that a vampire cannot enter a person’s home unless invited. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the Hawaii rule was unconstitutional. The Court again applied the Bruen analytical framework and concluded that the government had failed to justify the law by pointing to a sufficiently similar historical analog. This was a 6-3 decision with Justices Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. The effects of Wolford beyond its facts remain to be seen, but the immediate takeaway is that the Court is serious about rigorous application of the Bruen framework and expects lower courts to do the same.
Finally, on June 30, 2026, the Court consolidated two pending cases — Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins — and granted certiorari. Both cases challenge state restrictions on the sale of certain semiautomatic rifles. The question presented was: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
Whereas Hemani deals with the question of who may possess firearms and Wolford addresses where firearms may be possessed, Viramontes and Grant will address what types of firearms are protected by the Constitution and the extent to which particular types of firearms may be restricted. A decision, which will likely come down in June 2027, will provide clarity on the viability of various state and local restrictions. Manufacturers and retailers will be well advised to monitor the case and adjust their practices accordingly.