Supreme Court Justice Questions Gun Control Laws
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson referenced post-Civil War “Jim Crow” laws to support Hawaii’s gun control measures. This came during a case questioning a law passed by the Hawaii State Legislature following a 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Justice Jackson engaged with Acting United States Attorney General Sarah Harris about the legality of a law that bars concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property without explicit consent. “I mean, I’m not quite sure I understand your perspective on Judge Gorsuch regarding the Black Act,” Jackson said. “I thought the Black Code was under examination here, in light of the Bruen framework we’re using to assess the constitutionality of this law. It seems we need to look at historical context and traditional practices.”
Jackson continued, noting, “The Black Code was deemed unconstitutional at some point, but that seems irrelevant to the inquiry Bruen asks us to undertake. Can you elaborate on that?”
Recently, reactions to Jackson’s questioning surfaced on social media, with some expressing disbelief at her invoking the historical context of the Black Codes as a point of reference for constitutional evaluation.
Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, expressed her appreciation for attending the Supreme Court hearing, stating it was significant to witness the arguments surrounding the gun case, particularly noting Jackson’s defense of Reconstruction-era laws: “It was intriguing to see Judge Jackson reference the ‘negro law’ as relevant to evaluating Hawaii’s extensive anti-Second Amendment laws.”
In recent years, Democrats have voiced their critiques of various Supreme Court rulings related to abortion, gun rights, and free expression, calling for reforms to the institution. President Joe Biden suggested changes to Supreme Court structure in July 2024. The Washington Post underscored that such reforms, including possibly instituting an 18-year term for justices, could bolster democratic frameworks, especially after the ruling in United States v. Trump, which granted presidents certain immunities during their official duties.
