On Oct. 3, 2025, the Supreme Court unveiled a slate of pivotal cases for its 2025-26 term, signaling a winter of high-stakes legal battles. Among them, a challenge to a restrictive Hawaii gun law stands out after the court’s “long conference” review of pending petitions, as Sb reports.
This Hawaii dispute, Wolford v. Lopez, targets a 2023 state law born from the ashes of the court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision struck down a New York licensing scheme demanding special justification for public carry of handguns.
Hawaii’s response was to bar concealed carry permit holders from bearing arms on private property open to the public without explicit owner consent. It also outlaws firearms in “sensitive places” like parks and beaches, tightening the noose on Second Amendment rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld Hawaii’s bans on private property carry and in designated areas. A split panel refused a full court rehearing, prompting three Maui permit holders and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition to appeal to the Supreme Court in spring 2025.
These challengers argue the 9th Circuit’s method for validating the “sensitive places” ban wrongly leaned on post-Reconstruction laws, not the late 18th-century traditions the Supreme Court demands. They claim this distorts the historical lens on firearm regulation.
“[f]ive States embracing more than a fifth of the Nation’s population have already adopted a similar ‘Bruen-nullifying rule, and the decision below invites other jurisdictions in the Nation’s largest circuit to do likewise,’” warned U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the 9th Circuit’s ruling.
Isn’t it telling that progressive strongholds rush to curb freedoms when the court affirms them? The Trump administration, under President Donald Trump, the current president of the United States, filed an unprompted brief urging the justices to tackle this Hawaii case.
Beyond guns, the court will dive into historical grievances with Exxon Mobil v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., assessing if Exxon can sue under a 1996 law for property seized in Cuba in 1960. Title III of that statute permits U.S. nationals to target entities profiting from confiscated assets post-Jan. 1, 1959.
Lower courts sidelined Exxon’s claims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, shielding foreign states from U.S. lawsuits. After an appeal filed in 2024, the Supreme Court will now weigh whether justice delayed can still be justice served.
Similarly, in Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, the court examines if a firm holding rights to Havana docks, taken in 1960, can sue cruise lines for using them from 2016 to 2019. A district court awarded over $400 million, but the 11th Circuit blocked it, citing an expired 1905 concession.
Shifting gears, Pung v. Isabella County, Mich., probes a foreclosure over a mere $2,241.93 tax debt, where the county auctioned a home for $76,008, later resold for $194,400. The estate demands fair market compensation, alleging Fifth and Eighth Amendment violations.
The district court granted nearly $74,000, the gap between taxes and auction price, but the estate insists on the full market difference. One wonders if local governments profit more from seizures than from fair tax collection.
Lastly, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II questions if a federal law overriding state rules on motor carrier pricing and services blocks a state claim against a broker for negligent carrier selection. An exception for state safety authority over vehicles adds complexity to this preemption clash.
With four additional cases on the docket, including Cuba’s 1960s confiscations and takings clause disputes, the court’s term promises to shape core rights and federal-state balances. It’s a reminder that judicial restraint often guards against overreaching governance.
As these battles loom, the Supreme Court remains a bulwark against progressive overreach and bureaucratic excess. Whether on gun rights or property justice, the justices’ rulings will echo far beyond this term, hopefully restoring constitutional clarity.
