On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez; the challenge to Hawaii’s “vampire rule” that prohibits concealed carry on all private property unless the property owner gives their express consent. Ordinarily, the justices would divide time between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but the Department of Justice is now requesting that the Court carve out a few minutes for the Trump administration to weigh in as well.
On Tuesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer formally submitted the request to SCOTUS, noting that the U.S. government has a “substantial interest in thepreservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.”
Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of this Court, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully moves that the United States be granted leave to participate in the oral argument in this case and that the time be allotted as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for the United States, and 30 minutes for respondent. Counsel for petitioners consents to this motion.
This case presents the question whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization. At the certiorari stage, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that this Court should grant review. Now, at the merits stage, the United States has filed a brief arguing that the challenged state statute violates the Second Amendment.
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. The United States previously presented oral argument as amicus curiae in other Second Amendment cases. See NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (No. 20-843); NYSRPA v. City of New York, 590 U.S. 336 (2019) (No. 18-280); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (No. 07-290). The United States’ participation in oral argument could materially assist the Court in its consideration of this case.
Though SCOTUS doesn’t have to grant Sauer’s request, it’s rare for the Court to turn down the Solicitor General when they ask to participate in oral arguments. I expect that Sauer will get his ten minutes at the podium in January, where he’ll have time to expand on the arguments he presented in the amicus brief that was filed on Monday.
In that brief, Sauer chided the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding Hawaii’s “vampire rule” solely on the basis of a 1771 New Jersey law and an 1865 Lousiana law that prohibited carrying arms on some private property, while also slamming Hawaii for adopting a law that’s designed to “thwart the right to publicly carry arms” and to negate our Second Amendment rights.
Hawaii designed its novel affirmative consent rule to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms. Hawaii’s restriction singles out the carrying of firearms for discriminatory treatment; requires owners who have opened their property to the public to satisfy a special clear-statement rule for firearms; and contains exemptions that make sense only if Hawaii were trying to limit arms-bearing to favored groups and to exclude everyone else. Further, Hawaii’s law is so broad that it effectively nullifies licenses to carry arms in public. Because most owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns—and because it is virtually impossible to go about publicly without setting foot on private property open to the public—Hawaii’s law functions as a near-total ban on public carry.
California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York also enacted similar “vampire rules” after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen in a blatant attempt to minimize the decision and prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Most of those laws, however, are on hold thanks to injunctions granted by lower courts. If the Supreme Court were to uphold Hawaii’s law, not only would those injunctions likely disappear, but other blue states would be emboldened to enact similar restrictions eviscerating the right to carry.
I have to say, I’m not all that concerned about that scenario. I think we’re looking at a 6-3 decision striking down Hawaii’s law, and I wouldn’t be all that surprised if one or more of the liberal justices ended up joining the majority in declaring the “vampire rule” unconstitutional. The DOJ’s involvement in Wolford might not be necessary to make that happen, but it’s still a welcome development in the case.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
