Summary
This document contains statements by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch accompanying the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Wilson v. Hawaii. The justices critique the Hawaii Supreme Court's reliance on state standing rules to avoid addressing a defendant's Second Amendment challenge to the state's restrictive firearms licensing regime. While noting that the interlocutory nature of the ruling currently precludes Supreme Court review, both statements emphasize that lower courts must permit criminal defendants to raise constitutional defenses against allegedly unconstitutional licensing schemes. The Court denies certiorari, leaving the issue for potential resolution after final judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a criminal defendant charged with unlicensed public carry may raise a Second Amendment challenge to the State's licensing regime without first applying for a license.
- Whether Hawaii's state-law standing rule impermissibly restricted Wilson's ability to present a constitutional defense.
- Whether the interlocutory posture of the case justified denying certiorari despite the alleged failure of the Hawaii Supreme Court to address the merits of the Second Amendment defense.
Holdings
- Justice Thomas stated that a defendant may raise the unconstitutionality of a licensing statute as a defense when the statute is facially invalid and the government seeks to enforce its penalties; a State may not require a person to undergo an unconstitutional licensing process before invoking the Second Amendment.
- Justice Thomas stated that Hawaii's former may-issue regime, which restricted licenses to persons showing an exceptional case, urgency, or special need, appeared unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen because the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public cannot be conditioned on a showing of special need.
- The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied because the case arose from an interlocutory order and Wilson had not yet proceeded through trial and final judgment.
Key quotations
“That conclusion contravenes the settled principle that Americans need not engage in empty formalities before they can invoke their constitutional rights, and it wrongly reduces the Second Amendment to a “second-class right.”” (slip op. at 1)
“A defendant can always raise unconstitutionality as a defense “where a statute is invalid upon its face and an attempt is made to enforce its penalties in violation of constitutional right.”” (slip op. at 4)
“That Amendment is similarly self-executing, and a State transgresses it as soon as the State implements a licensing regime that is inconsistent with the Nation's “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”” (slip op. at 5)
“In an appropriate case, however, we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes.” (slip op. at 7)
Factual background
In December 2017, police arrested Wilson after he and companions wandered onto private property while hiking. Police found him carrying a loaded handgun in public without a license. Hawaii prosecuted him for criminal trespass and for carrying firearms and ammunition in public without a license under Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 134-25 and 134-27. At the time, Hawaii's licensing regime allowed concealed-carry licenses only for applicants showing an exceptional case and reason to fear injury, and open-carry licenses only for applicants showing urgency or need and other specified qualifications.
Procedural history
Wilson was charged in Hawaii with criminal trespass and firearms offenses arising from his carrying a loaded pistol in public without a license. The circuit court dismissed the unlicensed-carry charges on Second Amendment grounds. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding under state law that Wilson could not challenge the licensing regime because he had not applied for a license and had not been charged under the licensing statute. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.