Hawaii Supreme Court opinion 'got under Clarence Thomas’ skin': legal expert

In February 2024, the Hawaii Supreme Court was highly critical of views on the Second Amendment expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court's far-right justices. And two of those justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, expressed their indignation in an opinion released on Monday, December 9.

According to Slate legal expert Mark Joseph Stern, "It now appears the critique has gotten under some justices' skin. In an opinion on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, railed against the Hawaii Supreme Court's top-to-bottom evisceration of his own gun rights opinions. But Thomas and Alito protest too much: Their grousing is pure projection, accusing the Hawaii Supreme Court of committing the same sins at the heart of their own Second Amendment rulings."

Stern continues, "Given an opening to defend their Second Amendment views, the conservative justices whiffed — and, in their anger, fabricated a new rule that would make it even easier for law-breaking citizens to challenge gun regulations. It has never been more apparent that, as the Hawaii Supreme Court charged, SCOTUS' gun enthusiasts are making it up as they go along."

In February, the Hawaii Supreme Court described the High Court's right-wing as extreme ideologues where the Second Amendment is concerned.

ALSO READ: The Medicare Advantage trap: What they don’t tell you

The case that "set off the clash," according to Stern, was Hawaii v. Wilson — which, Stern argues, "should not be a difficult one."

"Christopher Wilson, the defendant, allegedly trespassed on someone else's property while carrying a loaded gun in his waistband," Stern explains. "Hawaii requires residents to obtain a permit to own a handgun; Wilson didn't have one. The state also requires a license for concealed carry; Wilson didn't have that either. Prosecutors charged him with criminal trespass and gun charges stemming from his possession of an illegal firearm and ammunition. Wilson contested the charges, arguing that they violated his rights under the Second Amendment."

Stern adds, "He also claimed that the charges ran afoul of a provision of the Hawaii Constitution that uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected Wilson’s arguments. It began by refusing to interpret the Hawaii Constitution in line with SCOTUS’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, which prohibits any gun restriction that isn’t rooted in the nation's 'history and tradition.'"

Mark Joseph Stern's full article for Slate is available at this link.