The Supreme Courtroom on Friday morning agreed to listen to oral arguments this winter in a problem to a Hawaii regulation that makes it a criminal offense for somebody who has a hid carry allow to hold a handgun on personal property with out the property proprietor’s affirmative permission. The announcement that the justices will take up Wolford v. Lopez got here as a part of a short list of cases from the courtroom’s “long conference” on Monday, at which they thought-about all the petitions that grew to become ripe for evaluate in the course of the justices’ summer season recess.
Along with the Hawaii case, the justices added 4 different new instances – on matters starting from Cuba’s legal responsibility for its confiscation of property in that nation within the Nineteen Sixties to the Fifth Modification’s takings clause – to the list of cases by which it can hear oral arguments in the course of the 2025-26 time period.
Hawaii handed the regulation on the heart of the dispute in 2023 in response to the Supreme Courtroom’s determination in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, by which the justices struck down a New York handgun-licensing regulation that required New Yorkers who wish to carry a handgun in public to point out a particular must defend themselves. Hawaii’s regulation bars anybody with a hid carry allow from bringing a handgun on personal property that’s open to the general public except the proprietor of that non-public property clearly offers permission to take action. The regulation additionally prohibits weapons in so-called “delicate locations,” similar to parks, seashores, playgrounds, and areas that serve alcohol.
The U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the ninth Circuit upheld the Hawaii ban on carrying a handgun on personal property with out permission, in addition to the bans on weapons in “delicate locations.” A deeply divided courtroom turned down the challengers’ request for the complete courtroom to rehear the case.
The challengers – three Maui residents with hid carry permits and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition – got here to the Supreme Courtroom within the spring, asking the justices to weigh in on two questions. First, they requested the courtroom to determine whether or not the ban on carrying a handgun on personal property is constitutional. “In holding the Second Modification doesn’t apply to non-public property open to the general public,” legal professionals for the challengers wrote, “the Ninth Circuit’s determination renders illusory the proper to hold in public.”
The challengers additionally requested the justices to take up a second query associated to the methodology that the courtroom of appeals utilized in upholding the ban on weapons in “delicate locations.” The Supreme Courtroom’s Second Modification instances have held that governmental rules of firearms have to be per the nation’s “historic custom.” However as an alternative of taking a look at rules on the time of the nation’s founding, within the late 18th century, the challengers contend, the courtroom of appeals improperly relied on legal guidelines from the post-Reconstruction period.
In a comparatively uncommon transfer, the Trump administration filed a “buddy of the courtroom” brief urging the justices to take up the case with out ready for an invite from the Supreme Courtroom to weigh in. U.S. Solicitor Basic D. John Sauer argued that the ninth Circuit’s determination “conflicts with Bruen’s recognition that the Nation doesn’t have ‘a convention of broadly prohibiting the general public carry of generally used firearms for self-defense.” He added that “[f]ive States embracing greater than a fifth of the Nation’s inhabitants have already adopted” an identical “Bruen-nullifying rule, and the choice under invitations different jurisdictions within the Nation’s largest circuit to do likewise.”
The Supreme Courtroom granted two different instances by which Sauer, though on the courtroom’s invitation, had additionally urged the justices to weigh in. In Exxon Mobil v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., the justices will determine whether or not Exxon Mobil can convey a lawsuit in opposition to three state-owned firms below the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 for compensation for the 1960 confiscation of property that its Cuban-based subsidiaries owned in Cuba. Title III of that regulation permits U.S. nationals who owned property in Cuba to sue anybody who “traffics in property confiscated by the Cuban Authorities on or after January 1, 1959.”
The decrease courts dismissed a lot of the claims, citing the Overseas Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal regulation that typically bars lawsuits in opposition to international governments in U.S. courts. Exxon Mobil got here to the Supreme Courtroom final yr, asking the justices to listen to its attraction.
In a brief filed in late August, Sauer advised the justices that they need to “grant evaluate and maintain that Title III fits in opposition to Cuban companies and instrumentalities can proceed with out having to moreover fulfill one of many enumerated exceptions to international sovereign immunity below the FSIA.” The U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sauer wrote, “incorrectly superimposed the FSIA’s common framework on a slim, Cuba-focused statute that clearly abrogates Cuban companies’ and instrumentalities’ immunity.”
And in Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, the courtroom agreed to determine whether or not an organization that owned a proper to function and revenue from the docks in Havana, which was confiscated in 1960, can convey a lawsuit below the 1996 regulation in opposition to 4 cruise strains for his or her use of the docks from 2016 to 2019.
A federal district courtroom entered judgments totaling greater than $400 million in opposition to the cruise strains, however the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the eleventh Circuit ruled that the lawsuit by Havana Docks, which had acquired a 99-year concession within the docks in 1905, couldn’t go ahead as a result of the concession – and subsequently the corporate’s curiosity within the docks – would have expired in 2004.
Sauer once more urged the justices to take up the case, telling them that the courtroom of appeals “restricted the attain of Title III fits simply when these fits have grow to be an more and more standard foreign-policy device.”
In Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan, the justices will evaluate a case filed by the property of a Michigan man whose dwelling was the topic of foreclosures as a result of the county believed (incorrectly, his property says) that he owed $2,241.93 in taxes. The county offered the property at public sale for $76,008; the customer then offered it for $194,400 – which, the property says, was its honest market worth.
When the property went to courtroom, the district courtroom awarded it the distinction between the quantity it owed in taxes and the worth that the nation acquired from the sale – that’s, almost $74,000. However the property contends that it ought to have acquired the distinction between the taxes owed and the honest market worth. The failure to pay that quantity, it argued in its petition for evaluate, violates each the Fifth Modification’s bar on the taking of property with out “simply compensation” and the Eighth Modification’s ban on extreme fines.
And in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, the courtroom agreed to determine whether or not a federal regulation that supersedes state legal guidelines “associated to a value, route, or service of any motor service” however carves out an exception for “the security regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor automobiles” bars a state-law declare in opposition to a dealer for negligently choosing a motor service or driver.
Instances: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Wolford v. Lopez, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan
Beneficial Quotation:
Amy Howe,
Supreme Courtroom to listen to instances on weapons, authorities confiscation, and several other different points,
SCOTUSblog (Oct. 3, 2025, 12:34 PM),
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-cases-on-guns-government-taking-of-property-and-several-other-issues/