As the U.S. Supreme Court justices conclude their summer term, reflections upon recent Second Amendment cases, United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez, reveal critical developments in firearm regulation interpretation. These decisions mark the court’s first multiple Second Amendment rulings in a single term since District of Columbia v. Heller, where self-defense as an individual right to own firearms was recognized.
On June 18, in the Hemani case, the court ruled unanimously against a federal regulation that barred marijuana users from owning a firearm. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, stated that historical “habitual drunkard” laws did not parallel modern restrictions on drug users. This decision emphasizes the necessity for historical analogues when enforcing firearm regulations.
A week later, in the 6-3 Wolford v. Lopez decision, the court invalidated a Hawaii statute that made it illegal to bring firearms onto private property without explicit owner consent. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state’s inability to present relevant historical analogues meant the law contravened the Second Amendment’s “plain text.”
In 2022, the Supreme Court introduced a revised interpretive framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. It advocates for assessing whether the Second Amendment’s text covers an individual’s conduct. If so, the regulation must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, or it risks being declared unconstitutional.
Particularly for Wolford, understanding the ‘plain text’ involved three key queries: applicability to ‘the people,’ relevance to ‘Arms,’ and restriction on keeping/bearing arms. The court’s majority, alongside Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence, underscored that historical limits cannot influence this initial inquiry, posing significant implications for lower court decisions.
The historical analysis, constituting the second step of the Bruen framework, requires identifying “historical analogue” laws that were widely accepted and relevantly similar to modern regulations. In both cases, the court cautioned against citing discriminatory laws, such as the 1865 statute from Louisiana, as legitimate precedents.
Looking to the 2026-27 term, the Supreme Court aims to further clarify what constitutes an “Arm” under the Second Amendment. It has granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, combined cases to determine the status of semiautomatic rifles like AR-15s under these protections. While the court refrained from hearing cases about firearm access for those under 21, Justice Clarence Thomas signaled persistent interest in revisiting these issues, forecasting continued judicial exploration into Second Amendment boundaries.