Heller and Bruen are here to stay

The October 2025 US Supreme Court Term saw significant developments in Second Amendment law, with two key decisions that further established and fleshed out the contours of reigning doctrine. The court held by a 9-0 vote in United States v. Hemani that disarming someone solely due to occasional marijuana use violates the Second Amendment. In Wolford v. Lopez, the court refused to countenance a novel approach to circumventing the Second Amendment by holding Hawaii's presumptive ban on carrying firearms in public establishments unconstitutional. These decisions demonstrate the continued importance of the text-and-history approach established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen and solidify the individual right protected by the Second Amendment.

The October 2025 US Supreme Court Term was marked by significant developments in Second Amendment law, with two key decisions that have further established and fleshed out the contours of reigning doctrine. The court's holdings in United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez demonstrate a continued commitment to protecting individual rights under the Second Amendment. This article will examine the implications of these decisions and their significance for practitioners.

The Supreme Court's consideration of Second Amendment issues began with District of Columbia v. Heller, which held in 2008 that the amendment protects an individual right. The court further solidified this holding in McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, ruling that the right applies to the states. In 2022, the court established a text-and-history approach for assessing alleged violations of the Second Amendment right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen. This approach has now been further fleshed out by the decisions in United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez.

The decision in United States v. Hemani is significant because it establishes that disarming someone solely due to occasional marijuana use violates the Second Amendment. This holding demonstrates a continued commitment to protecting individual rights under the amendment, even in cases where there may be concerns about public safety. The decision in Wolford v. Lopez is also noteworthy, as it refused to countenance a novel approach to circumventing the Second Amendment by holding Hawaii's presumptive ban on carrying firearms in public establishments unconstitutional. This refusal to uphold such a ban demonstrates that the court will not tolerate attempts to circumvent the amendment through creative legal arguments.

The decisions in United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez demonstrate a continued commitment by the Supreme Court to protecting individual rights under the Second Amendment. Practitioners should be aware of these developments and take note of the court's continued reliance on the text-and-history approach established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen. As the court continues to refine its understanding of the Second Amendment right, it is likely that we will see further significant developments in this area of law.