Wolford and Hemani: Supreme Court Decisions in Second Amendment Cases Expected Soon

Supreme Court building with Second Amendment text, a 1911 pistol, and judge’s gavel representing the Wolford and Hemani gun rights cases.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue decisions soon in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, two Second Amendment cases that could shape how Bruen and Rahimi are applied. Image generated with AI by AmmoLand editors.

Two Second Amendment cases have been heard by the Supreme Court this term. The Supreme Court’s opinions in those two cases are expected to be announced before the end of June 2026.

The two cases are the Wolford case, out of Hawaii in the Ninth Circuit, and the Hemani case out of Texas in the Fifth Circuit.

Wolford is essentially a question of whether a state can define “sensitive” locations so broadly as to prevent people from being armed in most public places.  Specifically, Wolford asks whether Hawaii has the authority to require property owners to actively choose to allow private carry on their property, or whether the State will ban private carry on their property.

The Hemani case is a fairly straightforward question: Can the government strip people of their Second Amendment rights if they are users of a substance (marijuana) which the government has deemed to be illegal, even if they are not carrying arms while impaired?

Both cases have the potential to further clarify the standard set in the Bruen decision for how courts are to decide Second Amendment issues. The Bruen decision was straightforward. If the case involved an infringement of Second Amendment rights, as provided by the text of the Second Amendment, the burden of showing that such limitations were necessary was on the government. The government had to show that there was a longstanding tradition of such limitations dating back to the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

If the government could show a longstanding tradition, then it was shown that such a limitation was considered understood as part of the right to keep and bear arms at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

In the Rahimi decision, the Supreme Court appeared to ease the restrictions somewhat. The decision allowed laws from the time of the ratification, which had a loose connection to the statute in question, to meet the Bruen test if the essential intent was the same. Both Wolford and Hemani present cases to the Supreme Court that could be used to narrow or broaden how lower courts interpret Bruen as seen through the lens of Rahimi.

The Supreme Court hears about 70 cases each year. Thousands of cases apply to be heard by the Court. In addition to the 70 or so cases heard on the merits, the Supreme Court has been burdened by numerous lawsuits against the Trump administration. These cases have taken up much of the Court’s time as they react to frivolous challenges to Trump’s administrative decisions. The Supreme Court has issued at least 35 emergency orders related to Trump’s administrative actions.  The more “emergency” actions, the less time to spend on cases on the merits. The vast majority of these cases have been decided in favor of the Trump administration.

Both the Wolford and Hemani decisions are expected to be released by the end of June 2026.

Both cases could shape how lower courts apply Bruen after Rahimi: Wolford on public carry and private-property default bans, and Hemani on whether the government may disarm people based on unlawful drug use without proof they were armed while impaired.

Bruen’s Text-and-History Test Spreads Beyond the Second Amendment


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten


Subscribe
Notify of
89 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
The Davidtollah

Concerning Wolford, States should not be allowed to create places off-limits to firearms. The fact this case exists is proof that government can’t be trusted to not abuse such authority. Generally, this is why government should be denied most forms of authority – it will inevitably abuse it. We can see with our own eyes that the meaning of the word “infringement” is regularly ignored. Words on paper don’t mean anything to government, making the words useless. This is a very dangerous game government is playing. Because once the words on paper no longer restrain it, what recourse remains to… Read more »

StreetSweeper

Well written article explaining relevant points so even I, a caveman, could understand.

DIYinSTL

It would be surprising to get the Wolford decision before the end of June with the justice’s bags packed and them headed out of town for summer recess. The last Thursday of the month is in two weeks on the 26th and the last day of June is the following Tuesday.

DIYinSTL

To quote Washington Gun Law, ‘We got a big nothing-burger’ today from SCOTUS.

Boz

SCROTUS are NOT gods!

Boz

SCROTUS is broken. Intentionally.

Jerry C.

And they decided (wrongly) for Hemani. Stoners with guns – what a bad fucking idea!