Supreme Court weighs state limits on carrying guns on private property
The Supreme Court of the United States SCOTUS in Washington D.C. (Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Three years after affirming a constitutional right of Americans to carry a gun for self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether states can limit the carry of firearms on private property open to the public without first receiving the property owner’s consent.
The case involves a Hawaiian law and similar measures in four other states –- California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey –- where lawmakers set a strict “default rule” prohibiting the possession of handguns in privately-owned places where other members of the public might congregate, unless the owner affirmatively gives permission.
The laws govern locations such as stores, shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, arenas, farms, and private beaches. It does not involve public property, which is subject to different rules.
“This law is extremely restrictive. It bans public carry in 96.4% of the publicly available land in the County of Maui,” said Alan Beck, an attorney for three Maui residents and members of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition who are challenging the law.
“They’d like to carry dropping off money at the ATM late at night or just going to have lunch at a restaurant,” Beck said. “They are unable to carry in any private business that is open to the public that is unwilling to put up a sign saying ‘guns allowed.'”
While property owners have the inherent right to exclude guns from their premises, Beck says the onus should be on them to make their wishes clear, otherwise expect that members of the public can freely exercise their Second Amendment rights as a matter of standard practice.
Unlike Hawaii, 45 states permit licensed handgun owners to presume they can legally carry their weapons onto private property open to the public, unless the owner explicitly bans guns by issuing verbal instructions or posting a sign.
“The express purpose of this law is to make it so that less people exercise their constitutional rights,” Beck said.
Hawaii officials argue in court documents that never in the nation’s history has there been a “right to armed entry onto private property without consent” and that its law is meant to protect a property-owner’s right to exclude guns without having to take extra steps.
“The basic principle is that private property owners are empowered to set the rules for their property, and the state can make it easier for private property owners to do so,” said Douglas Letter, chief legal officer at Brady, a gun safety group.
“Hawaii’s law is obviously eminently reasonable,” Letter added. “Visitors simply must get a private property owner’s permission to bring a firearm onto that property.”
The Supreme Court will evaluate the Hawaii law using a test laid out in a landmark 2022 decision in which Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the conservative majority, said only gun regulations consistent with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” can stand.
Hawaii points to an 1865 Louisiana law and 1771 New Jersey law as imposing nearly identical property restrictions as its current measure. The plaintiffs say they are “outlier” examples and not the historic norm. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Hawaii’s law, holding that “a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner’s oral or written consent.”
Beck and co-counsel Kevin O’Grady said they expect the justices will likely reverse that ruling in their favor. “Just because Hawaii is giving lip service to the Second Amendment when they’re doing the kind of things they’re doing — and doing these mental gymnastics to try to justify this law,” O’Grady said, “it will not be tolerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
US President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026. (Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump previewed a “more relaxed” approach from federal agents operating in Minnesota following two deadly shootings in Minneapolis in recent weeks, during an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott on Tuesday.
Trump has assigned White House “border czar” Tom Homan to lead the operation in Minnesota following fierce local and national backlash to violent incidents involving federal agents there.
Asked what would change with Homan now in charge, the president said “we can start doing maybe a little bit more relaxed” and “we’d like to finish the job and finish it well, and I think we can do it in a de-escalated form.”
The remarks appear to signal a shift in tone for Trump, who said just months ago that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids “haven’t gone far enough.” Trump and members of his administration had previously criticized both of the protesters who were killed — with the White House describing one as a “‘would-be assassin” — while also expressing sympathy for their families.
Those deaths came amid Operation Metro Surge, which has seen thousands of federal agents arrive in Minneapolis, where they’ve been tasked in part with detaining undocumented immigrants. That ongoing operation has been decried by local leaders, including the governor and mayor.
“Minnesota is a state that believes in the rule of law and in the dignity of all people,” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz wrote in an Op-Ed published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. “We know that true public safety comes from trust, respect and shared purpose, not from intimidation or political theater.”
In response to a legal challenge from state officials, who are seeking a temporary halt to the operation, a federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to address the motives behind ICE’s immigration enforcement effort in the state. The judge ordered the government to file the supplemental brief by Wednesday at 6 p.m. ET.
The president said conversations with Walz, who he has lambasted repeatedly for his leadership, were going “very well,” before he turned to praise Homan as “a great guy. He’s a different type. He’s a strong guy, but he gets along with people.”
Walz said on Monday he had spoken on the phone with Trump, a conversation the governor characterized as “productive.” Walz said he “told him we need impartial investigations of the Minneapolis shootings involving federal agents, and that we need to reduce the number of federal agents in Minnesota.” He said Trump had “agreed to look into” reducing the number of agents in the state.
Asked to clarify what a de-escalation in Minnesota might look like, Trump said in the interview that he wanted “people to appreciate the fact that we’ve taken thousands of criminals out, and because of that, their crime rate has gone down, which is a great thing.”
“A lot of the hardest work is already done,” he continued. “You know, we’ve taken out thousands of stone-cold criminals, including murderers. And I think that’s what the people of Minnesota want. That’s what the people of the country want. That’s why I got elected.”
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, has repeatedly said that he and his constituents want the federal agents to leave.
“Minneapolis will continue to cooperate with state and federal law enforcement on real criminal investigations — but we will not participate in unconstitutional arrests of our neighbors or enforce federal immigration law,” Frey said on Monday after a phone call with Trump.
Homan on Tuesday met separately with Walz and with Frey. The mayor said he had “shared with Mr. Homan the serious negative impacts this operation has had on Minneapolis and surrounding communities, as well as the strain it has placed on our local police officers.”
As to when federal agents might leave Minnesota, Trump said, “I don’t know about soon but at some point, when we have all the criminals out, they’re going to leave. It’s a positive thing, not a negative thing.”
Referring to what he called “very bad and dangerous people” in Minnesota, Trump continued, “We know where a lot of them are. And what we’re asking the governor to do is hand over the criminals that they have. It’ll make the job much easier and faster.”
The president also hinted at further federal operations elsewhere. “There will be a time coming in the not too distant future, then we go on to something else,” he said, also claiming successes in ongoing operations in Memphis, Chicago, Louisiana and Washington, D.C.
“We always continue,” Trump said. “I don’t think you can just go cold turkey and go out. I think there’s a continuation.”
“We have a lot of cities and areas that want us very badly,” the president said. “So we’re going to be choosing some new ones. We have a very — we have an unlimited appetite for fixing crime in cities. They seem to be all Democrat-run.”
The president’s focus on what he has called a “migrant crime epidemic” has focused on Democratic-run major cities. Local mayors, governors and other politicians have disputed Trump’s assertion that the deployment of federal agents or the National Guard is necessary to curb supposed criminality there.
Trump dismissed criticism of federal operations in Minneapolis related to Saturday’s deadly shooting of 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti, which sparked nationwide protests and demands for a full investigation. Pretti was carrying a pistol in a waist-level holster and was disarmed by federal agents before being shot multiple times.
The National Rifle Association was one of several gun-rights organizations that issued statements appearing to condemn comments made by officials, including Trump, after the shooting. Trump following the second deadly shooting in Minnesota described it as an “unfortunate incident,” but also said, “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns.” The NRA said it “unequivocally believes that all law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be.”
Minnesota officials confirmed Pretti had a license to carry a concealed weapon. Video evidence so far has not shown that he drew or reached for his weapon during the altercation with federal agents.
Asked about the backlash from gun-rights groups, Trump said, “Well, I haven’t seen the statements but I think when you have a fully loaded gun and two magazines, that’s not great.”
Trump has championed gun rights for years, including the right of people to protest while carrying weapons. But he also repeatedly criticized Pretti for being armed.
Gun Owners of America, another gun-rights group, responded by saying, “Peaceful protests while armed isn’t radical — it’s American. The First and Second Amendments protect those rights, and they always have.”
Trump also praised Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is facing calls to resign after the series of violent incidents involving DHS personnel. “I think she’s done a fantastic job, she’s strong,” the president said.
Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Ark., on Tuesday became the first Republican senators to call for Noem to lose her job.
In response, Trump branded both senators “losers.”
“They’re terrible senators. One is gone and the other should be gone,” Trump said in the interview. “What Murkowski says — she’s always against the Republicans anyway. And Tillis decided to drop out. So you know, he lost his voice once he did that.”
Among Trump’s most vociferous Minnesota opponents is Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who since 2019 has represented a district of Minneapolis. The president has repeatedly criticized Omar publicly.
During a town hall in Minneapolis on Tuesday, a man charged the podium Omar was giving remarks, appeared to squirt a liquid at her and was then tackled to the ground by a security guard after a brief struggle.
The man, identified as 55-year-old Anthony Kazmierczak, was arrested and booked into Hennepin County Jail on suspicion of third-degree assault, Minneapolis police said.
In his first comments on the attack, Trump told ABC News’ Scott of Omar, “I don’t think about her. I think she’s a fraud. I really don’t think about that.”
And, without providing evidence, Trump went on to accuse Omar of staging the attack, saying, “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”
Asked if he had seen the video, the president said, “I haven’t seen it. No, no. I hope I don’t have to bother.”
In a post on X regarding Tuesday’s incident, Omar said, “I’m ok. I’m a survivor so this small agitator isn’t going to intimidate me from doing my work. I don’t let bullies win. Grateful to my incredible constituents who rallied behind me. Minnesota strong.”
ABC News’ John Parkinson contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — When President Donald Trump and Defense officials revealed on Sept. 2 that the U.S. military killed 11 alleged drug smugglers on a boat in the Caribbean Sea, they touted it as a success in their war against South American cartels.
Their initial comments were met with scrutiny due to the lack of details they provided. More questions arose months later after it was reported that survivors from the attack were killed in a subsequent strike. The White House later confirmed on Monday that there was more than one strike on the boat.
Trump first announced the strike on his social media site as a “kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”
The post included a video of the strike that showed only one hit.
Trump alleged that the boat was under the control of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Maduro denied the allegations and criticized the U.S. for the attack.
Trump said a day later that a “massive” amount of drugs was on the boat, but provided little detail.
“It was massive amounts of drugs coming into our country to kill a lot of people. And, everybody fully understands that fact. You see it, you see the bags of drugs all over the boat, and they were hit,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Sept. 3. “When they watch that tape, they’re going to say, ‘Let’s not do this.'”
That same day, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also touted the strike during a “Fox & Friends” interview and refuted a Maduro spokesperson’s suggestion that the video was AI-generated.
“That was definitely not artificial intelligence. I watched it live,” he said. “We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented.”
The administration would go on to report 20 more strikes against boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing 83 people.
Hegseth spoke about the U.S. operation on Oct. 23 at a White House event on fighting drug cartels, arguing that suspects on the boats would be treated “like foreign terrorist organizations on the offense.”
“So the Department of War is not going to degrade, or just simply arrest. We’re going to defeat and destroy these terrorist organizations to defend the homeland on behalf of the American people,” he said.
His remarks came a week after survivors were reported following a strike on a boat in the Caribbean. The survivors eventually were released to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador, which prevented them from protesting their detention in a U.S. court.
When asked by ABC News’ Mary Bruce about how survivors would be treated in the future, Hegseth responded, “We’ve got protocol of how we’ll handle it,” but did not go into detail.
At the same event, Trump told reporters that he didn’t plan to ask Congress for authority or declare war against the cartels, and instead he declared bluntly, “We’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country.”
However, new questions arose about the legality of the attacks after a Nov. 28 Washington Post report that said the first strike on Sept. 2 initially left two survivors clinging to the wreckage and that before the strike Hegseth had given spoken orders to kill everyone on board.
The Post report, which cited two “two people with direct knowledge of the operation,” alleged that Adm. Mitch Bradley, then-head of the Joint Special Operations Command, ordered a second strike in order to comply with Hegseth’s initial orders and to ensure the survivors couldn’t call on other suspected traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.
Members of Congress from both parties had expressed concerns with the drug cartel operation, but in the days following the Washington Post report, Republican and Democratic leaders on both the House and Senate armed services committees put out joint statements saying they were looking into the incident.
Hegseth pushed back against the Post’s report saying in an X post that the strikes were legal.
ABC News has confirmed that survivors from the initial strike were killed as a result.
Trump told reporters Sunday that he did not know about the details about the Washington Post’s report and defended Hegeseth.
“He said he did not say that, and I believe him,” Trump said when asked about the report and Hegseth’s alleged order.
Trump added that he wouldn’t have wanted a second strike.
“I wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine, and if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn’t happen. I have great confidence,” he said.
On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley gave the order for the second strike, but did not give any more details.
The next day, Hegseth doubled down on the administration’s efforts to attack alleged drug boats.
“We’ve only just begun striking narco-boats and putting narcoterrorists at the bottom of the ocean because they’ve been poisoning the American people,” he said at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday.
Hegseth also clarified his earlier comments about watching the attack live.
“As you can imagine, the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I didn’t stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs,” he said. “So I moved on to my next meeting. A couple of hours later, I learned that the commander had made the — which he had the complete authority to do.”
“Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. He sunk the boat, sunk the boat, and eliminated the threat. And it was the right call. We have his back,” Hegseth added.
Hegseth said that he did not see any survivors while he watched the video.
“I did not personally see survivors, but I stand — because that thing was on fire. It was exploded and fire and smoke, you can’t see anything. You got digital, there’s — this is called the ‘fog of war.'”
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, during a news conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The mother of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s nephew was ordered released from immigration detention on Monday, according to her attorney.
Bruna Caroline Ferreira, who is in the process of obtaining a green card and previously held DACA status, was ordered released by an immigration judge on a minimum bond of $1,500.
Ferreira’s attorney, Todd Pomerleau, told ABC News that he argued at a hearing that his client is not a “criminal illegal alien,” as described by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), nor that she is a flight risk.
Ferreira is expected to be released Monday or Tuesday, according to Pomerleau.
The White House did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.
DHS confirmed two weeks ago that Ferreira had been detained. A reporter with ABC New Hampshire station WMUR spoke with Leavitt’s brother, Michael Leavitt, who also confirmed the arrest and said Ferreira had been detained a few weeks previously.
A DHS spokesperson then described Ferreira, a Brazilian national, as a “criminal illegal alien” who had a previous arrest for battery and had overstayed a visa that expired in 1999.
“ICE arrested Bruna Caroline Ferreria, a criminal illegal alien from Brazil. She has a previous arrest for battery. She entered the U.S. on a B2 tourist visa that required her to depart the U.S. by June 6, 1999,” the DHS spokesperson said. “She is currently at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center and is in removal proceedings. Under President Trump and Secretary Noem, all individuals unlawfully present in the United States are subject to deportation,” the spokesperson said.
“Bruna has no criminal record whatsoever, I don’t know where that is coming from. Show us the proof,” Pomerleau told Boston ABC station WCVB after Ferreria’s arrest was announced.
Pomerleau also said then that Ferreira entered the country lawfully, previously held DACA status and was in the process of obtaining a green card. He further said that his client was arrested in her car in Massachusetts after being stopped with no warrant, adding that he now has to litigate her case in Louisiana, thousands of miles away from her home.
Pomerleau also told WCVB that he did not believe that his client’s connection to Karoline Leavitt could affect the case, adding that he believes it’s just “happenstance.”
ABC News’ Armando Garcia, Jason Volack and Hannah Demissie contributed to this story.
