Supreme Court Reinforces Second Amendment Doctrine in Recent Rulings

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's reinforcement of Second Amendment doctrine means that existing and future firearms regulations in Florida will be scrutinized under the 'text-and-history' test established in *Bruen*, potentially challenging laws related to carrying firearms in public establishments or those targeting specific users like medical marijuana patients.

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Supreme Court issued two rulings during its October 2025 term that affirmed and clarified its Second Amendment jurisprudence, building upon its landmark decisions in *District of Columbia v. Heller* (2008), *McDonald v. City of Chicago* (2010), and *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen* (2022). In *United States v. Hemani*, the court unanimously ruled 9-0 that disarming an individual solely due to occasional marijuana use violates the Second Amendment. Additionally, in *Wolford v. Lopez*, the court struck down Hawaii’s presumptive ban on carrying firearms in public establishments, determining the ban circumvented the Second Amendment. The rulings illustrate the court's continued adherence to the interpretative framework established by *Heller* and *Bruen*. *Heller* affirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, not one exclusively tied to militia service. *Bruen* subsequently introduced a 'text-and-history' test for evaluating Second Amendment challenges, requiring the government to demonstrate that a regulation aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The *Bruen* test involves a two-step process. First, courts assess whether a challenged regulation restricts conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. If it does, the government must then prove the regulation is consistent with historical firearm regulation traditions. The challenger prevails if the government cannot meet this historical burden. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, expressed reservations about the *Bruen* approach in a concurring opinion in *Hemani*, stating she believes the court "veered off course in *Bruen*". However, no justice questioned the basic premise of *Heller*. *Wolford* clarifies the first step of the *Bruen* test. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing in a concurrence, explained that courts should not introduce additional limits into the 'plain-text' stage of the inquiry. This ensures the government bears the burden of historically justifying laws that regulate arms-bearing conduct. The court’s approach, as seen in *Wolford*, mirrors its treatment of other constitutional rights. For example, in *National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission*, the court stated, "when 'the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.'" Similarly, under *Bruen*, the government must prove the constitutionality of gun restrictions. *Wolford* also reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies uniformly to both state and federal governments, a principle clarified in *Bruen*. The court stated that individual rights in the Bill of Rights, when made applicable to states via the Fourteenth Amendment, hold the same scope against the federal government. *Wolford* emphasized that the Second Amendment embodies a "uniform national standard." Therefore, local conditions, such as those in Hawaii, do not alter its scope. Furthermore, *Wolford* provided guidance for historical analysis, requiring courts to consider if any historical analogs presented by the government were "widespread, well-known, and widely accepted." The court stated that discriminatory provisions, like the Black Codes, should not be used to justify Second Amendment restrictions. Such laws, if relied upon, suggest the present regulation falls outside mainstream historical practices. Both *Wolford* and *Hemani* maintained the court's rejection of an 'interest-balancing' approach for Second Amendment cases. This approach, which courts used between *Heller* and *Bruen*, evaluated if a law was tailored to a modern policy goal. The court noted that 'interest-balancing' approaches often led to the rejection of nearly all Second Amendment claims as courts tended to defer to legislative judgments on public safety. Under *Bruen*, the focus remains on historical consistency rather than modern policy aims. This approach aims to assess fidelity to the original understanding of the Second Amendment right by analyzing legal sources and engaging in established judicial reasoning. The Supreme Court's docket now includes Second Amendment cases with increasing regularity, suggesting a continued active role in defining the right's contours under the *Heller-Bruen* framework.