Legal jargon, double negatives, and the ping-pong nature of court cases can be difficult to follow, sometimes even for legal experts, and even more so in a case like Wolford v. Lopez, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear only in part, recently reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanding (or sending back to the lower court) for reconsideration. On August 10, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion based on the remand. We explain what that means below.
On August 8, 2023, a federal district judge blocked large portions of Hawaii’s Act 52, a Bruen-response bill that created numerous sensitive places where firearms were banned. The case was eventually consolidated with two other cases of similar nature out of California and heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which largely overturned the district court’s temporary restraining order-turned-preliminary injunction on September 6, 2024, allowing the law to go into effect.
On October 3, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the novel case, but granted only a limited review as it pertained to the default rule for private property, asking the question: is it constitutional for the default rule to ban firearms on private property open to the public? Oral arguments took place on January 20, 2026.
In its June 25, 2026, 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court answered, “No,” to the above question, striking down the default no-carry presumption, a case that has caused a ripple effect of supplemental briefings in related cases across the nation, including in New Jersey’s sensitive places challenge, on which the Third Circuit has yet to rule.
The Ninth Circuit’s August 10 opinion is the direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in June. In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court reversed itself (as directed by the Supreme Court) as it relates to its decision on the private-property default rule, allowing the lower district court’s injunction to remain in place. Or in other words, today, the law in Hawaii is that the presumption is that concealed carry is allowed (unless otherwise posted) on private property open to the public.
The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the injunction (issued by the lower court) blocking bans on:
- firearms in parking areas used or shared by the state with non-governmental entities
- carrying in the premises or adjacent parking areas of any bank or financial institution
However, the Ninth Circuit’s decision proves that unless a heavy hand from above tells it to do otherwise, it will gladly embrace gun control measures, which it affirms in the statement, “Our analysis as to all other aspects of Hawaii’s law is unaffected.”
That is to say, the court reversed the lower court’s injunction (allowing enforcement) on bans on carrying in bars and restaurants serving alcohol and a long list of public locations. The Ninth Circuit remanded the remainder of the case back to the district court for further consideration.
