Alito rules ‘spirit of aloha’ does not override Second Amendment in Hawaii gun case

Justice Samuel Alito took aim at arguments from Hawaii‘s reliance on the “spirit of aloha” as rationale for expansive and restrictive gun laws, in a ruling Thursday striking down a sweeping firearm law in the Aloha State.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3, on ideological lines, to strike down a sweeping Hawaii gun law that required gun owners to get permission to carry their firearms on any private property in the state. Alito penned the majority opinion, which rejected Hawaii officials’ arguments that a state’s individual history should dictate the extent to which gun rights are protected under the Second Amendment.

“This argument is little different from the central argument offered by the city of Chicago in [the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago], and Hawaii’s version fares no better. As the plurality explained in McDonald, the Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States. It cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii, any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald),” Alito wrote.

“It applies in the same way to our 50th State (where about 8% of adults possess guns) and our 49th State (where the figure is roughly 59%). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito added.

Alito also noted the concerted effort by state officials to make it “almost impossible to obtain a license to carry a firearm” in the 50th state. Lawyers for Hawaii argued earlier this year that the sweeping gun law was backed up by the historical tradition of firearm regulations, pointing to various examples in the state’s history, including from before Hawaii was a U.S. territory.

The state’s view was endorsed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in a 2024 case upholding sweeping gun restrictions, where the judges on that panel noted that the “aloha spirit” inspires the reading of the Constitution.

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others,” the Hawaii Supreme Court said in its 2024 ruling.

Alito rejected the premise that the “spirit of aloha” should guide the legality of gun laws in Hawaii with his ruling in Wolford v. Lopez Thursday, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, argued rules made by the former king of Hawaii should carry weight when looking at whether a law is constitutional under U.S. law.

“Since its time as a sovereign kingdom, Hawaii has never permitted the widespread carrying of firearms in its territory. In 1833, King Kamehameha III of the Kingdom of Hawaii prohibited the possession of ‘dangerous weapon[s].’ Hawaii maintained this tradition of strictly regulating weapons both before and after it was annexed as a U.S. territory in 1898,” Jackson wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Jackson framed the law, which was replicated in four other states, as being a curated solution to both uphold Second Amendment rights and Hawaii’s “tradition” of restricting firearms.

“One problem that Hawaii confronted as it undertook to implement Act 52 was how best to protect Hawaiians who, accustomed to the traditional practice, might not be aware that gun laws were changing to allow for armed, and concealed, carry in everyday life. In particular, given Hawaii’s history, private property owners were unlikely to expect guns to be carried onto their property or to know that they needed to take steps if they did not wish to permit armed entry,” Jackson wrote.

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN SWEEPING HAWAII GUN LAW 6-3

The Supreme Court is next scheduled to issue opinions on Monday, with eight cases still outstanding in the high court’s current term.

The remaining Supreme Court cases awaiting a ruling include a pair of cases about President Donald Trump’s firing power, a pair of cases about state laws banning biological men from women’s sports, and a pair of election-related cases.