U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments Wolford v. Lopez
Jan 20, 2026
Mr. Cothiel, additional counsel arguing states may set property-consent defaults. Ms. Harris, counsel defending Hawaii’s presumptive-consent rule as historically consistent. Mr. Beck, lead counsel challenging the law as a presumptive ban on public carry. They debate property-defaults vs constitutional carry, historical analogs under Bruen, and whether presumptive consent is a permissible state regulation.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Flipping The Historical Default
- The petitioner argues Hawaii's law flips a long-standing national default that allowed carrying on private property open to the public unless the owner objects.
- Counsel says Hawaii's statute is inconsistent with the nation's historical tradition and lacks relevant analogs to justify the presumptive ban.
Consent Versus Constitutional Right
- Justices probed whether private-property consent, not the Second Amendment, controls carrying rules on private lands.
- Beck maintained the case concerns private property open to the public and thus implicates public-carry rights under Bruen.
Level-Of-Generality Matters
- The Solicitor General argued many historical analogs Hawaii cites (anti-poaching, Black Codes) are not 'relevantly similar.'
- She stressed the key distinction: laws about property closed to the public differ from rules governing property open to the public.