Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii Gun Law 6-3; Jackson's Dissent Cites Black Codes

The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii gun restriction 6-3 in Wolford v. Lopez, with Justice Jackson's dissent drawing sharp criticism for referencing Black Codes-era law.

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down a Hawaii gun law in the case Wolford v. Lopez, invalidating a restriction the state had partly defended by citing historical Black Codes — laws originally enacted to disarm Black Americans after the Civil War. The decision continues the Court's post-Bruen trajectory of using historical legal precedent to evaluate modern gun regulations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent in which she argued the Court should have examined whether such Black Code laws were constitutionally valid — a line of reasoning that drew immediate backlash from gun rights attorneys and advocates. Critics, including the lawyer who successfully challenged the Hawaii law, called the state's reliance on Black Code precedent 'disgraceful.' Black Codes were post-Civil War statutes enacted primarily in Southern states to restrict the rights of freed Black Americans, including their ability to bear arms. Legal scholars and civil rights historians have long characterized them as tools of racial oppression. Gun rights groups argue that citing such laws as historical analogues to justify modern firearm restrictions is both legally and morally untenable. Hawaii's gun law was challenged under the framework established by the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The 6-3 split in Wolford v. Lopez reflects the Court's current conservative majority on Second Amendment questions.

Why it matters

The ruling reinforces the Bruen standard's reach and signals that states defending gun laws with historically discriminatory legal precedents face significant constitutional hurdles. The case also reignites debate over how historical legal analysis should be applied to modern constitutional questions.

What's next

Hawaii and other states with similar gun restrictions will likely need to reassess the historical justifications they use to defend those laws under the Bruen framework.

Key facts

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down a Hawaii gun law in Wolford v. Lopez.
• Hawaii's legal defense for the law included citations to historical Black Codes — post-Civil War laws that restricted the rights of freed Black Americans.
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the Court should have examined the constitutional validity of those Black Code laws.
• The attorney who successfully challenged the Hawaii law publicly called the state's use of Black Code precedent 'disgraceful.'
• The case was decided under the framework set by the Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun laws to align with historical U.S. firearm regulation traditions.
• Black Codes were statutes used primarily in Southern states after the Civil War to suppress the rights of Black Americans, including the right to bear arms.

Bias & framing notes

Gateway Pundit's framing is openly partisan, describing Justice Jackson as 'Far-left' and her dissent as 'stupid,' which is opinion, not reporting. Fox News and NewsBreak focused on criticism of Jackson's dissent and the attorney's reaction, while the Washington Post headline referenced a separate Hawaii speech law, suggesting its reporting may not directly cover the same gun case — its inclusion as a source is potentially a mismatch in subject matter. NewsBreak provided the most straightforwardly factual framing of the gun case outcome.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week