DOJ Defends Second Amendment in Supreme Court Brief

In a landmark move, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez, a case challenging Hawaii’s sweeping ban on carrying firearms on private property that is accessible to the public. The brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case—arguing that Hawaii’s law is incompatible with the constitutional right to bear arms.

This intervention represents one of the most aggressive federal actions in defense of the Second Amendment in recent memory—and appears to align with recent public comments made by Harmeet Dhillon, head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

“The new project I’ve got going in the Civil Rights Division, to the surprise of many people on both sides, is the Second Amendment,” Dhillon said in a recent interview. “Who’s protecting the Second Amendment in the federal government?”

The DOJ’s Argument: Hawaii’s Law Defies Bruen

The DOJ’s 27-page brief, filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, does not mince words. It argues that Hawaii’s law—which makes it a crime to carry a firearm onto most private property unless the owner gives explicit consent—effectively nullifies the right to carry arms in public.

“The Second Amendment, which binds the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’” [DOJ Brief, p.1]

The brief continues:

“Hawaii’s law flips the constitutional presumption. Rather than presuming a law-abiding citizen has a right to carry in public, it presumes the opposite—effectively barring carry across vast swaths of the state unless the property owner posts a sign saying otherwise.” [p.14]

The DOJ is correct, this framework cannot stand in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), in which the Supreme Court made clear that gun regulations must be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Good job DOJ!

“The historical record does not support a blanket ban on carrying firearms on all publicly accessible private property.” [p.17]

Dhillon’s Vision Comes Into Focus

While the amicus brief was authored by the Solicitor General’s office, it closely echoes the priorities expressed by Harmeet Dhillon who is one of the signers of the brief, and who was recently appointed to lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In a now widely circulated interview, Dhillon explained her intent to treat Second Amendment violations as civil rights violations worthy of federal attention and intervention.

She called out several jurisdictions by name:

“Colorado just passed a law that is extremely onerous and imposes a financial burden on gun ownership. California is… allowing you to apply for concealed carry in multiple places and then they don’t staff the departments that do the interviews. D.C.… it’s months before I can get an appointment… to even apply to exercise my Second Amendment rights.”

Dhillon was blunt: “I’m exercised about that. I’m not happy about that and I might be doing something about that.”

Her message was clear: Americans’ right to keep and bear arms is not a second-tier constitutional right, and the federal government must not remain silent while states devise clever ways to sidestep Supreme Court rulings.

A Civil Rights Case?

The DOJ’s brief in Wolford marks a significant turning point in how the Second Amendment is framed. No longer merely a subject of cultural or political debate, the right to bear arms is being asserted by the federal government as a core civil right, entitled to the same federal enforcement scrutiny as voting rights or religious freedom.

“The government’s brief makes clear that the Second Amendment is not optional for the states. You can’t create a patchwork of rights where carry is only allowed in a few areas, or where bureaucratic obstacles make the right impossible to exercise,” said a constitutional attorney reviewing the brief.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari and rules in line with the DOJ’s arguments, it could create nationwide precedent limiting the ability of states to restrict public carry by redefining “sensitive places” or using default-prohibition models like Hawaii’s.

Looking Ahead

Wolford v. Lopez now stands as a pivotal case in the post-Bruen legal landscape. It may answer one of the most pressing unresolved questions: Can a state enact a general default ban on carrying firearms, even in areas where carry has historically been permitted?

For now, one thing is clear—the Department of Justice is not sitting on the sidelines.  Here is the video interview referenced above:

Friend of NAGR and recently appointed Civil Rights Division Director @HarmeetKDhillon promises strong action against states who are trampling the 2nd Amendment.

Colorado, New York, and many more have spent years pretending Bruen never happened and ripping up the Constitution. pic.twitter.com/PsTvwE0n1E

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) April 29, 2025