Every Supreme Court decision interpreting the Second Amendment, from United States v. Cruikshank (1876) through Wolford v. Lopez (2026). Each case summary includes the holding, legal standards established, and impact on constitutional law.
The Supreme Court's most recent Second Amendment decision is Wolford v. Lopez (decided June 25, 2026). By a 6–3 vote, in an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that Hawaii's law barring licensed carry on private property open to the public unless the owner gives express permission violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, describing it as a way of circumventing Bruen. One week earlier, in United States v. Hemani (June 18, 2026, opinion by Justice Gorsuch), the Court unanimously held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) may not be applied to disarm a person solely for occasional marijuana use. Before those, the leading decision was United States v. Rahimi (2024), which clarified how the text, history, and tradition test applies. Other recent firearms cases (e.g., Bondi v. VanDerStok, 2025, on "ghost gun" kits) were decided on statutory grounds, not the Second Amendment.
Pending: On June 30, 2026 the Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the first cases to squarely present whether states may ban AR-15-style rifles. See Supreme Court on AR-15 and Magazine Bans.
554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, unconnected to militia service, for traditionally lawful purposes including self-defense within the home.
561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Held that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Established "text, history, and tradition" test for Second Amendment challenges and recognized right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
602 U.S. ___ (2024)
Upheld federal prohibition on firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders as consistent with historical tradition.
577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Per curiam reversal holding that the Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms, even those not in existence at the founding.
92 U.S. 542 (1876)
The Court's first Second Amendment discussion. Held that the right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" and that the Second Amendment "means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress" — restricting only the federal government, not states or private actors.
116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Upheld an Illinois law prohibiting private armed military parades. Reaffirmed Cruikshank's holding that the Second Amendment limits only the federal government, while noting states may not disarm their citizens so as to deprive the United States of its reserve militia.
153 U.S. 535 (1894)
Rejected a challenge to a Texas law restricting the carrying of pistols, holding the Second Amendment operates only on the federal government and the claim had not been properly raised below.
307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Upheld National Firearms Act restrictions on short-barreled shotguns, finding no evidence such weapons had reasonable relationship to preservation of well-regulated militia.
445 U.S. 55 (1980)
Upheld the federal felon-in-possession statute against a defendant whose underlying conviction was uncounseled. In a footnote, the Court described firearm restrictions on felons as not "trench[ing] upon any constitutionally protected liberties," citing Miller.
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), also touched the amendment in passing, noting in dictum that the right to keep and bear arms "is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."
| Case | Year | Vote | Holding in Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Cruikshank | 1876 | — | Second Amendment restricts only the federal government |
| Presser v. Illinois | 1886 | 9–0 | Armed parade ban upheld; no application to states |
| Miller v. Texas | 1894 | 9–0 | State pistol-carry restrictions not reviewable under Second Amendment |
| Robertson v. Baldwin | 1897 | — | Dictum: concealed-carry bans do not infringe the right |
| United States v. Miller | 1939 | 8–0 | NFA restrictions on short-barreled shotguns upheld |
| Lewis v. United States | 1980 | 6–3 | Federal felon-in-possession statute upheld |
| District of Columbia v. Heller | 2008 | 5–4 | Individual right to keep arms for self-defense in the home |
| McDonald v. City of Chicago | 2010 | 5–4 | Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment |
| Caetano v. Massachusetts | 2016 | Per curiam | Protection extends to modern bearable arms (stun guns) |
| NYSRPA v. Bruen | 2022 | 6–3 | Right to public carry; text, history, and tradition test adopted |
| United States v. Rahimi | 2024 | 8–1 | Disarming persons under domestic violence restraining orders upheld |
| United States v. Hemani | 2026 | 9–0 | § 922(g)(3) cannot disarm a person solely for occasional marijuana use |
| Wolford v. Lopez | 2026 | 6–3 | Hawaii's default ban on carry in businesses open to the public struck down |
The Supreme Court regularly considers Second Amendment cases. Cases granted review, recent cert petitions, and pending cases address:
Check the Supreme Court docket for current cases.
| Period | Prevailing View | Key Case | Standard Applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1939-2008 | Collective right/militia focus | Miller | Militia suitability |
| 2008-2022 | Individual right with limits | Heller | Interest balancing |
| 2022-Present | Historical tradition focus | Bruen | Text, history, tradition |
Wolford v. Lopez, decided June 25, 2026. The Court held 6–3 that Hawaii's rule barring licensed carry on private property open to the public without the owner's express permission violates the Second Amendment. A week earlier, United States v. Hemani (June 18, 2026) unanimously held that § 922(g)(3) cannot disarm a person solely for occasional marijuana use. The most recent decision on the historical-tradition test itself remains United States v. Rahimi (2024), which held 8–1 that temporarily disarming individuals found by a court to pose a credible threat to another's safety is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The text, history, and tradition test from Bruen (2022): when the amendment's plain text covers the regulated conduct, the government must show the regulation is consistent with historical tradition. Rahimi (2024) clarified that a modern law need only be "relevantly similar" to historical analogues — not a "historical twin."
Yes. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the amendment protects an individual right unconnected with militia service, and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) applied that right to the states. See Individual Right Doctrine.
Not yet, but it will. On June 30, 2026 the Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated challenges to the Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut assault weapon bans, with argument expected in the fall of 2026 and a decision by June 2027. The Court had previously declined review in Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island (June 2025); a magazine petition, Duncan v. Bonta, is still pending. See Supreme Court on AR-15 and Magazine Bans for every relevant order and statement.
Thirteen decisions have directly addressed the amendment: Cruikshank (1876), Presser (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), Robertson v. Baldwin (1897, dictum), United States v. Miller (1939), Lewis (1980), Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), Caetano (2016), Bruen (2022), Rahimi (2024), Hemani (2026), and Wolford v. Lopez (2026). The full list appears in the table above.
Each case summary provides:
All summaries are based on the Court's actual opinions, not commentary or interpretation. For legal advice, consult a qualified attorney.