The Supreme Court has declined to hear Minnesota’s appeal to reinstate a ban on gun-carry permits for young adults, effectively upholding a lower court’s ruling that the restriction violated Second Amendment rights.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court rejected Minnesota’s appeal to revive a ban on gun-carry permits for 18-to-20-year-olds
- The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously struck down the law as unconstitutional
- No justices dissented from the decision
- The Court simultaneously upheld a University of Michigan ban on campus firearms
- Similar age-based gun restrictions exist in over 30 states and the District of Columbia
Minnesota’s Gun Permit Ban Remains Overturned
The Supreme Court’s rejection of Minnesota’s appeal solidifies the lower court’s ruling that the state’s ban on gun-carry permits for adults under 21 violates their Second Amendment rights. The federal appeals court in St. Louis previously determined that Minnesota’s restrictions, enacted in 2003, conflicted with constitutional protections that do not specify an age limit for the right to bear arms. This decision comes as part of a pattern where the Supreme Court has shown reluctance to take up additional gun rights cases since its landmark 2022 decision that expanded Second Amendment protections.
The rejection was somewhat unexpected as both parties in the case had sought Supreme Court review, particularly given the inconsistency in lower court rulings across the country on similar age-based gun restrictions. Minnesota’s law was similar to measures that exist in more than 30 states and the District of Columbia, raising questions about how this decision might impact those jurisdictions. The state had argued that its restrictions were reasonable safety measures targeting an age group with high rates of gun violence.
Contrasting Decisions on Firearms Access
In the same session, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal challenging the University of Michigan’s ban on firearms on campus, effectively allowing the university’s restriction to stand. No justice dissented in either the Minnesota or Michigan case, suggesting a unified court position on both matters. This simultaneous action demonstrates the Court’s nuanced approach to Second Amendment cases, distinguishing between age-based restrictions on public carry and institutional policies governing specific locations like university campuses.
These contrasting outcomes reflect the complex legal landscape surrounding gun rights following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new historical tradition test for evaluating gun regulations. Federal courts across the country have reached different conclusions when applying this test to age-based restrictions. In January, the federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a federal law requiring individuals to be 21 to buy handguns, while in February, a federal judge upheld Hawaii’s ban on gun possession for those under 21.
Implications for State Gun Laws Nationwide
The Supreme Court’s rejection of Minnesota’s appeal may have far-reaching implications for similar laws in other states. Under federal law, individuals must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer, though younger adults can buy other firearms. Minnesota’s law still allows significant access to guns for those under 21 with certain conditions for supervision and possession, but prohibits them from obtaining carry permits. The law was challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by both a federal judge and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Since its landmark 2022 Bruen decision, the Supreme Court has declined to hear numerous gun cases, including a recent challenge to New York’s new gun restrictions. The Court did uphold a federal law in June 2024 prohibiting firearm possession by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, showing that not all gun regulations face judicial rejection. This selective approach suggests the Court is allowing lower courts to work through the implications of its 2022 ruling before further expanding or clarifying Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The Future of Age-Based Gun Restrictions
The decision not to review Minnesota’s case leaves unresolved questions about the constitutionality of age-based gun restrictions nationwide. Gun control advocates argue these laws are necessary due to high rates of gun-related deaths among 18-to-20-year-olds, while Second Amendment supporters contend that adults old enough to vote and serve in the military should have full constitutional rights. With different federal appeals courts reaching contradictory conclusions on similar laws, this issue may eventually return to the Supreme Court when the justices determine the time is right for further clarification.
In the meantime, states with similar age restrictions may face legal challenges based on the precedent established in the Minnesota case, potentially leading to a patchwork of different gun regulations across the country. The Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court ruling stand without comment provides little guidance on how other courts should evaluate similar laws, leaving significant uncertainty about the future of these regulations and the proper balance between public safety concerns and constitutional rights.
