Why Wolford Should Worry Big Gov Fans More Than Slaughter

While everyone obsesses over the Unitary Executive, SCOTUS quietly dropped a major constraint on government power over private property open to the public. It reaches far beyond the Second Amendment.

---

Forgive me for all the posts in the last few days and the upcoming days. I’m getting caught up on a bunch of Supreme Court doings, celebrating America 250, and doing some future prognosticating!

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s recent term, much of the hysteria has focused on Trump v. Slaughter and the reaffirmation of the Unitary Executive. That’s understandable, but the big-government left (and anyone who likes expansive state power) should actually be far more concerned about Wolford v. Lopez.

What the Court Actually Held

After the Bruen decision in 2022, Hawaii enacted a law that made privately owned property open to the public (gas stations, theaters, shopping malls, stores, restaurants, parking lots, etc.) “sensitive places”. It then went further and said that you could not bring a firearm, concealed or open carry, into these places even though you were a law abiding citizen with a valid concealed carry license. Unless the property owner put up signage explicitly allowing carrying a firearm. The state claimed they were simply enforcing private property rights.

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional. The core principle is straightforward and powerful: The government cannot use its regulatory power to effectively nullify constitutional rights on private property that is held open to the public.

The Much Bigger Implication

This isn’t really (or only) about guns. It is about the limits of government power over private property open to the public.

SCOTUS has now made clear that states and cities cannot simply designate broad categories of private property as “sensitive” and thereby ban the exercise of constitutional rights there. This has obvious and immediate implications for the Second Amendment, but it also reaches into First Amendment territory like speech, religion, and assembly. As well as many other rights protected by the Constitution.

If the government cannot turn a shopping mall or grocery store into a gun-free zone by fiat, it similarly faces serious limits on turning those same spaces into speech-free zones, protest-free zones, or religious expression-free zones. This is a major check on the administrative and regulatory state’s ability to carve out exceptions to the Bill of Rights wherever it finds it convenient.

Missing the Forest for the Trees

The reaction has been strangely muted on the progressive side compared to Slaughter. They’re focused on the narrow “sensitive places on private property” angle and largely missing the deeper structural point: the Supreme Court just put a significant new constraint on the ability of states and cities to regulate away constitutional rights on property that is functionally public in character.

This decision strengthens property rights and individual liberty simultaneously. It tells governments they cannot have it both ways. they can’t treate private property as public when it suits them for regulation, but then restrict rights as if it were purely governmental space.

Bottom Line

Wolford v. Lopez may end up being one of the sleeper hits of the term. While Slaughter restores accountability within the executive branch, Wolford limits the government’s ability to create constitutional no-go zones across vast swaths of everyday American life.

The administrative state and big-government advocates just took a bigger hit than many of them realize.

---

Observations from the Late Republic
#Constitution #SecondAmendment #WolfordvLopez #ConstitutionalRights #PrivateProperty

---

Further Reading

• Wolford v. Lopez (2026) – Full opinion

• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) – The foundation this builds upon

• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

  ---