When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Jan. 20, 2026, in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, they will have a stack of amicus briefs from various gun rights organizations, and a 43-page brief from the U.S. Department of Justice, supporting the plaintiffs in what could become a landmark—and necessary—Second Amendment ruling.
The United States has entered this fray on the side of plaintiff Jason Wolford et.al., which once again demonstrates how dramatic a change in government philosophy toward the right to keep and bear arms has occurred under the Donald Trump administration.
As the brief states right up front, “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.” This would not have been possible, or even imaginable, under a second Joe Biden term, or with Kamala Harris in the White House.
The government brief is submitted by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris and others. Six pages into its brief, the government notes, “The district court granted a temporary restraining order to petitioners. It rejected their facial challenge but held that Hawaii’s affirmative consent rule likely violates the Second Amendment as applied to property “held open to the public.” It explained that individuals have traditionally been free to carry firearms on such property, unless the proprietor directs otherwise… It found no historical support for Hawaii’s inversion of that presumption. The parties agreed to, and the court approved, a stipulation converting the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction.”
But then the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took the case, affirming in part and reversing in part, and there was a strong dissent led by Judge Lawrence James Christopher VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee. In his remarks, he said Hawaii’s restrictive statute, “effectively nullifie[s] the Second Amendment rights” of Hawaiians and “has no grounding in the historical record,” as noted in the government’s amicus brief.
Already lined up in support of Wolford are the National Association for Gun Rights, Second Amendment Law Center, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, National African American Gun Association, National Rifle Association, Independence Institute and most recently, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Second Amendment Foundation, Connecticut Citizens Defense League and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, submitting a 28-page brief, which may be read here.
Hawaii’s restrictive concealed carry law, dubbed the “Vampire Rule” because it requires legally-armed citizens to get permission from individual property owners before entering ordinary places which are open to the public, is designed to discourage private citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
This much is made plain by CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who explained, “As we point out in our brief, the ‘Vampire Rule’ is unconstitutional because presumptively denying those exercising their right to carry from entering almost every relevant place ‘would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,’ which is precisely the intent of the politicians who authored the statute now being challenged.”
“This is the post-Bruen rebellion in its purest form,” added Konstadinos T. Moros, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education, in a prepared statement. “Anti-gun states invented the ‘Vampire Rule’ for the sole purpose of nullifying the right to carry. They are not protecting private property rights – they are deliberately making public carry so burdensome that citizens will simply give up. The Ninth Circuit blessed this transparent end-run around the Second Amendment and only the Supreme Court can stop it.”
In its brief, the government states, “Hawaii’s ahistorical affirmative-consent rule for private property open to the public infringes the “right to keep and bear Arms” guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Hawaii cannot criminalize public carry by imposing on property owners a clear-statement requirement that applies to no other constitutional right.”
The brief goes on to argue, “Firearms restrictions violate the Second Amendment unless they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022). That tradition encompasses two basic, cross-cutting principles that doom Hawaii’s restriction. First, firearms regulations must serve legitimate objectives and may not be designed simply to inhibit the ability to possess or carry protected firearms. Second, firearms regulations may not have the effect of broadly negating protected rights. Under the Second Amendment’s original meaning, those limits represent the bare minimum requirements that any firearms regulation must fulfill.
“Applying those principles here,” the government states, “Hawaii’s affirmative consent rule violates the Second Amendment because its manifest purpose and effect is to burden the Second Amendment right to public carry, not to advance a legitimate interest.”
The federal government’s brief isn’t the only document from a legal heavy-hitter, Attorneys general representing 25 states and the Arizona Legislature have also submitted a brief.
By accepting the case, the Supreme Court appears willing, if not determined, to smack down several states which, in the wake of the 2022 Bruen ruling, scrambled to pass the most restrictive concealed carry laws they could imagine. They used the term “sensitive places” as a weapon to restrict legally-armed citizens from carrying almost anywhere outside of their own residences. This was not what the high court intended with Bruen, and essentially everyone knows it.
The court’s decision will not likely be issued until sometime in late June 2026, simply because the court traditionally holds its most controversial rulings until the final few days of the session.
It is a ruling which will come in the middle of the 2026 midterm election campaign season and will definitely have pro-rights and anti-gun politicians lining up on opposite sides.
The Jan. 20 hearing should be interesting, educational and perhaps even volcanic.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
