The Supreme Court decided not to hear a case regarding Minnesota’s stance on not recognizing concealed carry permits from other states, announced on Monday.
In January 2025, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit against the state on behalf of Jeffrey Johnson, challenging the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson for the state’s refusal to acknowledge concealed carry permits from Georgia and Florida. The petition was submitted to the Supreme Court on August 24 after a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit favored Minnesota. However, the Supreme Court’s orders released Monday indicated it would not review this case, which was among those the justices opted not to hear.
The petition expressed, “According to the Eighth Circuit, an individual’s Second Amendment rights are restricted to the borders of the state where they hold a firearm permit. So, despite going through the licensing process, a law-abiding citizen must, in essence, start over if they wish to carry their weapon in another state.”
The Second Amendment is one of the few constitutional rights that cannot be reasonably exercised when crossing state lines. Johnson is a trucker with valid carry permits from Florida and Georgia but cannot carry in Minnesota due to the state’s refusal to recognize the permits. https://t.co/pdX5GK7lxk
— Nover 🇺🇸 (@Nover2A) August 31, 2026
The justices didn’t provide any comments on their choice regarding the case, effectively upholding the Eighth Circuit’s ruling.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is still reviewing other cases, including one known as Duncan v. Bonta, which challenges California’s prohibition on magazines holding more than ten rounds. This particular case has already had 24 discussions, marking a record. Notably, a similar ban in New Jersey was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Second Amendment grounds earlier this year, leading to a “circuit split.”
This term “circuit split” comes into play when different federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings, which raises the chances of the Supreme Court taking up such cases.
There are also two other important cases linked to the Second Amendment that involve “circuit splits.” In Beckwith v. Frey, challenging Maine’s three-day waiting period for firearms purchases, the First Circuit upheld the waiting period. Conversely, the Tenth Circuit struck it down in August 2025, overruling an earlier decision by a judge from New Mexico.
In the case of Daniel Defense v. Lowy, a federal district judge dismissed the lawsuit, and the Fourth Circuit sided with Lowy. This prompted the firearms company to appeal to the Supreme Court in August, citing a conflict with other federal appellate courts.
The petition stated, “The Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits maintain that if a third party caused the plaintiff’s injuries, then the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions had a significant effect on that party. Yet the Fourth Circuit rejected this notion, aligning with the Second Circuit’s perspective. Following the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the Ninth Circuit also aligned itself with this latter view.”
“Now there’s a 3-3 split regarding how traceability should be evaluated in circumstances where another party is directly responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff,” the petition continued.
The Supreme Court’s next conference, during which the justices will discuss potential new cases, is scheduled for Friday.
