Lisa Cook, governor of the US Federal Reserve, during the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Policy Forum at Stanford University in Stanford, California, US, on Wednesday, May 27, 2026. : David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court has blocked for now President Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Lisa Cook, over allegation of gross negligence and without any formal opportunity for her to answer the claims.
The decision means Cook, a Democratic appointee who has 10 years left on her 14-year term, will retain her position. She is the first Black woman to serve on the central bank’s advisory committee.
While the Court has recognized expansive power of a president over executive branch agencies, it has appeared to draw a line at the Fed, which has a long history of independence from direct White House interference.
Federal law allows presidents to remove a Fed governor, but only for cause. The heart of Trump’s appeal before the high court involved what constitutes “cause;” who gets to decide that; and, what due process may be owed.
The president had asserted unchecked power, insisting allegations of mortgage fraud against Cook – raised by a member of Trump’s administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte – were sufficient basis alone for her removal.
Trump has claimed Cook illegally filed a mortgage application for a second home as a “primary” residence in an effort to secure more favorable loan terms, at the very least creating an impression of impropriety. The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation.
Cook, who refused to resign and has not been charge with a crime, insists through her attorneys that relying on “one stray reference” in a 2021 mortgage document amounts to pretext for a politically-motivated effort to manipulate the Fed’s policy board.
The case was being examined by the court in a very preliminary posture, focusing primarily on Trump’s request to stay a lower court order that Cook be allowed to remain on the job as litigation continues. No lower court has thoroughly considered the legal or constitutional issues connected to the dispute.
The court’s decision is widely seen as a victory for the independence of the Federal Reserve – at least in the near term – in the face of Trump’s extraordinary effort to influence the central bank.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The U.S. Supreme Court building stands in Washington, D.C., U.S. Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg
(WASHINGTON) — In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court has voted to allow President Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter, for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power.
The 6-3 decision came from Chief Justice John Roberts.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Cherry blossoms at the Supreme Court on a windy morning in Washington, D.C. (John Baggaley/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday, in a 5-4 decision, upheld state laws that allow the counting of late-arriving mail-in ballots even if they were postmarked by Election Day.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at Networth and Chill podcast at the Vox Media Podcast Stage at SXSW on March 15, 2026, in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Rick Kern/Getty Images for Vox Media)
(CALIFORNIA) — As he gears up for a possible presidential bid, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday proposed a national “billionaires’ tax,” — a day after the state wealth tax measure he opposes qualified for the November ballot.
Newsom’s counter proposal calls for a federal minimum tax rate on Americans worth more than $100 million, rather than a state level one-time 5% wealth tax that the governor argues could be dodged by billionaires who could leave the state for another.
Newsom, who said earlier this month that he is “considering running for president,” said the country should return to pre-2017 corporate tax rates and close offshore loopholes that allow multinationals to shift profits and pay less in taxes. He also said inheritance rules need to be rewritten.
“Over the next twenty years, this country will live through the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in human history, with roughly $124 trillion changing hands. If we do not act, that transfer of wealth among the ultra-wealthy will lock in a permanent American aristocracy of inherited wealth,” Newsom wrote in a Substack post announcing the proposal on Friday morning.
The announcement comes a day after California’s own billionaire tax qualified for the November ballot, having collected more than double the signatures needed. The measure, a one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth introduced by healthcare workers union SEIU-UHW, in response to steep healthcare funding cuts resulting from President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” has faced opposition from Newsom, California Democratic gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra and major lobbying organizations.
“We can’t let a single advocacy organization, however well-intentioned, write the state’s tax code on its own terms,” Newsom wrote, calling out the SEIU-UHW.
The measure has also led to heavy spending from billionaires, who oppose the tax. The nonprofit, Building a Better California, which supports committees promoting two competing ballot initiatives that would nullify the billionaire tax initiative, if passed, has raised more $118 million — and $80 million of that comes from Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
Newsom says that he understands the “anxiety driving the wealth tax proposal in California,” but that he’s voting no on the California proposal, because he argues the measure dedicates almost all of the revenue to just state-funded healthcare services.
SEIU-UHW Vice President Debru Carthan said Thursday that the coalition supporting the tax would not back down.
“The billionaire tax will be on the November ballot,” said Carthan. “And we intend to win.”
About 250 billionaires would be taxed under the California measure, and the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says it’s likely that some billionaires would leave the state.
“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” Newsom writes. “Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes. The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”
Dan Schnur, a political science professor at UC Berkeley, called Newsom’s tax proposal “savvy political positioning” as it helps him enter the 2028 field without being seen as an opponent to taxing the rich.
“He’s not against taxing billionaires, he just has a different way of doing it,” Schnur said. “He now has an answer for progressive Democrats, whether in California or in early primary states, as to why he didn’t support the ballot measure.”
In Washington, another 2028 contender, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, joined Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders — both of whom supported the California’s initiative — in introducing legislation that would establish an annual 5% wealth tax on billionaires nationwide.
Newsom is also proposing a national public equity fund, giving Americans a stake in economic gains generated by artificial intelligence companies. The fund — aimed at workers left behind by automation — would support universal child care, free higher education, career training and healthcare.
“Part of this fund could provide a real transition for the laid-off factory worker in Ohio or the 25-year-old coder in San Francisco who sent out a thousand resumes and got zero callbacks,” Newsom wrote. “This could include significant severance and portable benefits while we support them through the transition and into new jobs with programs like enhanced employment insurance.”
“As artificial intelligence reshapes the country, every American should own a piece of the future it builds,” Newsom wrote.
Other potential 2028 contenders are also beginning to stake out their positions on AI. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced legislation proposing a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction, which would create a temporary prohibition on the construction and expansion of data centers until Congress passes legislation to address the economic, environmental and safety impacts of artificial intelligence.
A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions on June 23, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order, a move which would upend more than a century of legal precedent and a national tradition that have said babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.
The ruling, one of the most highly anticipated of the year, is a major test of Trump’s unprecedented assertion of presidential power in his second term with major stakes for millions of children and their families.
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the idea that a child automatically becomes a citizen of the country in which they are born, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.
It reflects the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, extending citizenship purely on the basis of geographic location.
By contrast, many countries extend citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis, or right of blood, which is determined by the nationality of a child’s parents regardless of the location of birth.
How does birthright citizenship work in the U.S.?
With few exceptions, all babies born on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.
For the approximately 3.6 million children born in American hospitals every year, the birth certificate alone has been the key to obtaining Social Security numbers, passports and early life benefits.
Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for such things as voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.
What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship?
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to address the legal status of former slaves and their descendants, says plainly that all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.
Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law enacted in 1940.
Courts and the government have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born in the U.S., including babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as asylum seekers, international students, tourists and seasonal workers.
Do other countries allow birthright citizenship?
Yes. Thirty-two other countries have citizenship laws nearly identical to the U.S., according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center. Roughly 50 more have limited versions of birthright citizenship.
The most inclusive citizenship policies are in countries in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Mexico, for example, closely mirror American law.
Pakistan, Chad and Mozambique are other notable comparators to the U.S.
European countries have historically been more restrictive when it comes to citizenship. France, Greece and Spain extend citizenship at birth only to children whose parents were also born in those countries.
Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom grant automatic citizenship to any child born to a legal resident.
Why does President Trump want to end birthright citizenship?
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship by redefining the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
He claims that children born to noncitizen parents who are either unlawfully in the country or who possess temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore ineligible.
The order would restrict citizenship to babies of current American citizens or other lawful permanent residents that have established “domicile” in the U.S.
The president argues the current citizenship policy is a “scam” that has allowed wealthy adversaries to take advantage of American benefits and “ripped off” taxpayers by providing financial assistance to children of undocumented people.
What is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship has been part of American tradition repeatedly affirmed by courts and legislators for more than a century.
The Supreme Court previously rejected constitutional arguments similar to the ones Trump is making.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in 1898 in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups have warned that ending birthright citizenship would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to noncitizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year to noncitizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
What happens if the Supreme Court allows Trump to end birthright citizenship?
The Trump administration says federal agencies have prepared guidelines for implementing a new process of conferring citizenship to children born after the order takes effect.
Federal agencies — by electronic databases or otherwise — would evaluate the legal status of a child’s parents first before making a determination of eligibility for citizenship and, in turn, for a Social Security number, passport and other benefits.
A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship for any child going forward, including those born to American parents.
Immigrant advocates have warned of a “bureaucratic nightmare” for all parents of newborns, with vulnerable low-income children being particularly at risk of not getting necessary health care or nutrition assistance.
Some children who would not qualify for U.S. citizenship may be rendered “stateless” since several countries, particularly in southeast Asia, do not confer citizenship automatically to children born to their nationals abroad. That lack of legal status might make some newborns immediately eligible for deportation.
Can birthright citizenship be stripped if the court upholds Trump’s order?
The Trump administration says the executive order is not retroactive and would only apply to babies born after it takes effect.
However, some legal experts fear that any legal reasoning upholding Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment could potentially be used by a future administration to pursue efforts to strip citizenship from some people if it wanted to.
“The government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments in April.
When will the Supreme Court issue a ruling?
The justices are expected to rule in the case — Trump v. Barbara — before adjourning for their summer recess in early July.
A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions on June 23, 2026, in Washington, DC. As it nears the end of the 2025-2026 term, the court handed down rulings in five cases, leaving about 10 more to be announced in the next week. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, reversing a lower court decision that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
“We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in the country,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s conservative majority. “An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border.”
The 6-3 decision effectively allows border agents to shut the door to migrants fleeing violence and persecution, and deny them even the chance to seek refuge in the U.S.
Federal law says the opportunity to apply for asylum must be afforded to those who “arrive in” the country.
While the policy was voluntarily rescinded in 2021 after a surge of migrants had overwhelmed border crossings, the government now has the ability to reinstate it if necessary. Trump has so far invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
“A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line,” Alito wrote. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door. An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its walls. And a letter does not arrive in a mailbox while it remains in the mail carrier’s hand just inches away.”
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said her colleagues were distorting the procedures set out by Congress to protect vulnerable people.
“The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil. They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country,” she wrote. “Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.”
Sotomayor invoked the history of the MS St. Louis from World War II, when European Jews sailed across the Atlantic seeking safety in the U.S., only to be turned away and sent back, where most were killed in the Holocaust. Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act, in part, to address that “mistake” of the past.
“The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not,” she wrote. “More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religious, nationality, or political opinion.”
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on June 22, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge Thursday morning blocked part of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting, marking the third time in less than a week that a federal judge has stymied the Trump administration’s attempt to increase federal oversight of elections.
Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from creating a national list of approved voters eligible to receive mail-in ballots from the Postal Service, as well as new regulations intended to increase the Postal Service’s oversight of mail-in voting.
“[T]he Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone. … Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress may interfere with this power,” Talwani wrote, in part.
Talwani said that the efforts included in Trump’s March 2025 executive order exceeded his authority as president and encroached on the right of states to oversee elections.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Talwani further wrote. “The President ‘plays no direct role in the process’ of appointing electors, ‘nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do.’”
Neither the White House nor the postmaster general have yet commented publicly on the ruling.
A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked an executive order provision that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and demanded mail-in ballots be received by Election Day. On Monday, another federal judge blocked a Trump administration voter-screening database, ruling that the government’s “haphazard” system unlawfully consolidated “the private information of millions of Americans” in an effort to purge non-citizens from voter rolls.
Prior to Thursday’s ruling, a different judge declined to issue an order blocking the mail-in voting policy because it had not yet been implemented. However, earlier this month, the Postal Service posted a proposed rule to enact part of the executive order, while Postmaster General David Steiner on Wednesday said that his agency would refuse to deliver ballots unless states turn over lists of voters.
Thursday’s ruling effectively stops that policy in its tracks, though the Trump administration is expected to appeal.
“[N]o law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS. The voting-related guidance currently issued by USPS is not binding on the States, merely recommended,” Talwani’s ruling Thursday said.
S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office of the White House on June 24, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can cancel the temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Haitians and Syrians, concluding that the Department of Homeland Security has broad discretion with little-to-no judicial oversight to decide when they must return home.
The ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on the approximately 1.3 million people who rely on TPS to live and work in the United States legally, and advocates said they fear it will have devastating and possibly deadly long term costs for those refugees.
Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that courts cannot override the federal government’s determination about TPS status in most cases.
TPS status, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides work authorization and protection from deportation — as long as the Homeland Security Secretary certifies that a foreign country is unsafe because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”
Alito concluded that the law establishing the TPS program did not give courts the authority to second guess the DHS’s determinations about which countries merit the protected status, which was created to shield immigrants from countries ravaged by war or national disasters.
“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows ‘no judicial review of any determination … with respect to the … termination of a TPS designation,” Alito wrote.
Though the ruling centered on the TPS of Haitians and Syrians, the ruling effectively gives the Trump administration the green light to carry out similar terminations, which they have already done for 13 countries.
James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s General Counsel, praised Thursday’s ruling.
“The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense,” he said in a statement.
Attorneys for the Haitian plaintiffs said in a statement Thursday that the ruling “will directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths.”
“This decision will endanger Haitian TPS holders who fled their homeland in pursuit of what generations of immigrants yearned for when they made the painful decision to leave all they have known. to live in safety,” Geoffrey Pipoly and Andrew Tauber told ABC News in a statement.
“It’s a very sad day, not only for Haitian TPS holders but for anyone who believes, as we do, that immigrants are one of America’s greatest strengths,” they added. “The responsibility to save these lives is now with Congress–and we urge the Senate to pass the extension of TPS now pending in that chamber. “
It is unclear if Congress will vote on an extension, however, Trump has repeatedly called for the end of TPS protections and would not likely sign off.
The court’s liberals also lambasted the decision, arguing that the statements made by President Donald Trump about some of the countries whose status was cancelled — including making baseless claims that Haitians eat dogs and cats during the 2024 presidential race — demonstrate that race played a role in the decisions.
“The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print,” wrote Justice Kagan. “The references–of filth, disease, and primitiveness–are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes.”
The court’s liberals also argued that the statute creating TPS does allow courts to review if DHS carried out legally-required procedures to cancel the status — something the plaintiffs allege did not happen.
“It does nothing to stop courts from reviewing things other than the Secretary’s ‘determination[s]’ concerning TPS designations,” Kagan wrote.
Immigrant advocacy groups have warned about the possible sweeping consequences of this ruling, saying it will open the door for an “astonishing human tragedy.”
Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake in 2010 and has since been hit by subsequent natural disasters, political unrest following a presidential assassination, and waves of rampant gang violence.
More than 113,000 Haitian TPS holders work in Florida alone, which is home to a high proportion of America’s seniors, according to the Florida Immigrant Coalition.
Syria devolved into civil war around 2011 and has been considered by the U.S. government a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades. A major earthquake in 2023 plunged the country into a deeper economic and humanitarian crisis.
“This is an awful harbinger for what we expect this administration to try to do for other TPS designations. Hundreds of thousands of people who have lived here for decades now see heartbreaking chaos ahead,” FWD.us President Todd Schulte said in a statement Thursday.
Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in separate acts last year, moved to terminate TPS status for Haiti and Syria by certifying that, in her estimation, conditions on the ground in those countries were sufficiently safe for immigrants to return.
Those decisions were blocked by lower courts, which concluded that Noem did not follow proper procedures for cancelling TPS and may have also unlawfully discriminated against the immigrants on the basis of race.
Pastor Carl Ruby, a prominent community leader in Springfield, Ohio, who has sought to stand up for Haitians there after Trump’s false comments about them eating pets rattled the community and preceded numerous bomb threats.
“This is the worst possible outcome,” Ruby told ABC News through tears. “I had always held out hope that we would get a good decision and can’t believe that we’re here now.”
Ruby contended that there was racial motivation behind the administration’s actions.
“If you look at the history of the president’s comments about Haiti and Haitians, it’s clear that this wouldn’t be happening if these were refugees from Norway. I just feel like we have failed as a country and I don’t think I’ve ever been as disappointed in our country as I am right now,” he said.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican who has defended the Springfield community, said deporting Haitians “is a mistake.”
“As a result of today’s ruling, the over 10,000 Haitians who have been living in Ohio (mostly in the Springfield area) legally through TPS will now be here illegally and will be subject to immediate deportation,” the governor said in a statement.
“This also means that while these Haitians were working and contributing to our community and economy yesterday, today it is now illegal to employ them,” he added.
“The situation in Haiti could hardly be much worse. The violent gangs run most of the country. The government barely functions. And, the economy is in shambles,” DeWine said.
-ABC News’ Laura Romero, Armando Garcia and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
National Park Service employees and contractors use vacuums to remove green algae from the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on June 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Park Police are seeking assistance in identifying a person wanted in connection to a “destruction of government property” investigation related to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Park Police posted on social media Wednesday a video of the alleged incident that shows a person reaching into the Reflecting Pool and appearing to pull something from the water. The video is somewhat blurry and shot from a distance. ABC News has reached out to National Park Service and Park Police about the source of the video.
The incident allegedly occurred at 3:36 p.m. ET on Friday, June 19. Park Police said anyone with information on the identity of the individual should contact their tip line.
The bulletin comes as President Donald Trump continues to blame vandals for alleged damage at the Reflecting Pool after his administration’s $16 million renovation.
The White House has yet to provide evidence that shows the alleged vandalism to the site.
“The Reflecting Pool that you’ve heard so much about, which is so incredible, it’s been gruesomely vandalized by thugs, bad people, but soon will be looking as beautiful as it looked just two weeks ago,” Trump said on Wednesday night as he kicked off Freedom 250’s Great American State Fair with remarks on the National Mall.
“In fact, I looked at it just a little while ago, it looks perfect already,” the president continued. “But we’re fixing it. The vandals got to it, they’ve largely been caught and are being prosecuted. We can’t let that happen to our country.”
The Interior Department and the U.S. Park Police, though a spokesperson earlier this week, confirmed there had been several arrests and federal citations for alleged vandalism. Trump said on Tuesday that six people had been arrested.
Trump also said earlier this week that the Reflecting Pool will be drained again for “permanent repair” around the Fourth of July.
Cherry blossoms at the Supreme Court on a windy morning in Washington, D.C. (John Baggaley/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that prohibits the carry of a firearm onto private property that is open to the public unless the property owner gives express consent.
In a 6-3 decision by Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s conservative majority said the law imposed “severe restrictions on the daily activities” of lawful gun owners in violation of the Second Amendment.
“Rather than allowing all to enter private property open to the public unless specifically prohibited, these new laws provided that no one carrying a firearm may enter without express authorization,” Alito wrote.
“The Hawaii law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” the opinion said.
The ruling, which likely also invalidates similar laws in California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey, is a setback for gun control advocates that had argued the measures were necessary for public safety in places like shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, farms, arenas and private beaches.
Hawaii had argued that there is no such thing as a right to armed entry onto private property without consent, pointing to a handful of historical examples of similar laws since America’s founding.
But the court’s conservatives concluded that those analogues were “outlier legal rules adopted in a few locales.”
“Overwhelming evidence shows an enduring American tradition permitting public carry,” Alito wrote.
While private property owners may still prohibit firearms on their premises, the onus now falls entirely on those owners to post signage banning guns. The default rule, in essence, is that lawful gun owners may carry their weapons unless told otherwise, according to the decision.
Forty-five states presume that it is okay to carry guns on private property open to the public unless property owners make their contrary wishes clear.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the ruling “only further binds the hands of modern legislatures attempting to balance and protect their residents’ interests.”
“Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law,” Jackson wrote.
The National Rifle Association, which backed the challenge to the Hawaii law, praised the majority decision in a statement on X.
“Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places,” wrote NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford.
Brady, a gun safety group, slammed the court’s decision as “deeply dangerous” and one that “privileges guns over everything and all people in society.”
“This common-sense law is what the people of Hawaii wanted, but the court has complete disregard for that community will. Ultimately, the court makes it clear that it cares little about the threat of gun violence posed to the American people,” said Kris Brown, the group’s president.
