Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson complained in a dissent released Thursday that the Supreme Court applying the Second Amendment involves throwing out unconstitutional gun laws.
The high court decided in Wolford v. Lopez that the state’s law requiring private property owners who wished to allow concealed carry on the premises to clearly post signs that carrying guns was allowed was a violation of the Second and 14th Amendments. Jackson argued in her lengthy dissent in the 6-3 opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, that the Supreme Court got it wrong in its June 2022 Bruen decision, as she did in a concurrence in Hemani v. United States released June 18.
“I think Bruen was wrongly decided. But if it is going to be our precedent, the majority should at least endeavor to apply it faithfully,” Jackson wrote in the dissent joined by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “I respectfully dissent because the majority has failed to do so here, and its analysis and conclusion only further bind the hands of modern legislatures attempting to balance and protect their residents’ interests.”
“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”
A thread on Wolford v. Lopez. https://t.co/MJwEhuqwvR
— SAF (@2AFDN) June 25, 2026
“With this decision, the Court has now manipulated Bruen into a free-for-all that lets the Judiciary thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else,” Jackson continued. “Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law.”
The Supreme Court declared New York’s “good cause” requirement for pistol permits was a violation of the Second Amendment in the June 2022 Bruen decision. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the court’s opinion in the case, established a “text and history” standard for Second Amendment challenges, requiring the government to demonstrate that the law in question is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
“Hawaii chose to protect the unaware property owner while leaving open to gun owners the opportunity to carry firearms where consent has been provided,” Jackson claimed. “Notably, in making this choice, Hawaii was not alone. It joined four other States that had similar laws.”
Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s discretionary system for issuing concealed carry permits, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, California and New Jersey enacted laws that imposed extensive restrictions on where permit holders could carry. Gun-rights advocates dubbed the measures as “vampire laws,” referencing legends about the need to invite a vampire into a home or room.
Federal appellate courts split on the validity of the statutes, with the laws in Hawaii and Maryland being upheld by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, while the Second Circuit declared New York’s version unconstitutional.
(DCNF)
