Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ Gun Law
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a closely watched challenge to a Hawaii firearms law critics have labeled the state’s so-called “vampire rule,” a statute that effectively bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on most private property open to the public unless they receive explicit permission.
The case, Wolford v. Lopez, focuses on a 2023 Hawaii law that makes it a misdemeanor for concealed-carry permit holders to bring a firearm into places such as retail stores, hotels, restaurants, and other publicly accessible private property unless the owner gives express verbal or written consent or posts signage allowing firearms.
Three Maui residents, along with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, filed suit shortly after the law was enacted, arguing it violates the Second Amendment by dramatically shrinking the number of places where law-abiding citizens can exercise their right to armed self-defense. A federal district court initially blocked portions of the law, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely allowed it to stand, setting the stage for Supreme Court review.
Hawaii officials defended the statute as a reasonable balance between public safety, private property rights, and constitutional protections, claiming it aligns with historical regulations governing firearms. Gun rights advocates, backed by the Department of Justice under President Donald J. Trump’s second-term administration, countered that the law effectively nullifies the right to carry by making armed entry into everyday locations the exception rather than the rule.
The Supreme Court limited its review to the law’s “default rule” governing private property open to the public and declined to consider other aspects of Hawaii’s firearms code, including restrictions on so-called “sensitive places” such as bars and beaches.
A ruling is expected later this year and could have far-reaching consequences for similar consent-based carry laws in states like California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey.
Meanwhile, a separate legal battle involving President Trump’s immigration enforcement policies unfolded in Washington, D.C. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb declined to block the administration from enforcing a new Department of Homeland Security rule requiring members of Congress to provide one week’s notice before visiting immigration detention facilities.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., claimed that she and other Minnesota lawmakers were removed from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Minneapolis on Saturday, January 10, after being informed of the Trump administration’s updated visitation policy.
Attorneys representing several Democratic lawmakers sought emergency intervention, but Judge Cobb ruled Monday that they used the wrong “procedural vehicle” to challenge the policy. She also noted that the January 8 directive is a new DHS action and not covered by her earlier ruling favoring the plaintiffs.
“The Court emphasizes that it denies Plaintiffs’ motion only because it is not the proper avenue to challenge Defendants’ January 8, 2026, memorandum and the policy stated therein, rather than based on any kind of finding that the policy is lawful,” Cobb wrote.
Last month, Cobb temporarily halted a previous version of the administration’s oversight visit policy, ruling on December 17 that ICE likely could not require lawmakers to provide advance notice before conducting oversight visits.
According to the Associated Press, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem signed a new memorandum the day after Renee Nicole Good died in Minneapolis, reinstating the seven-day notice requirement.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, represented by the left-wing legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, claimed DHS failed to inform them of the new policy until after Reps. Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig were denied entry to the ICE facility inside the Minneapolis federal building.
Melissa Schwartz, a spokesperson for Democracy Forward, said the group is reviewing the judge’s latest order as the dispute continues.