Legal/Law/Criminal Justice and Reform

Supreme Court Declines Case On Concealed Carry Across State Lines

Wikimedia Commons/Joe Ravi

The Supreme Court declined to accept a case challenging Minnesota’s refusal to honor concealed carry permits from other states Monday.

Liberty Justice Center sued the state of Minnesota on behalf of Jeffrey Johnson in January 2025 against Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson over the state’s refusal to recognize concealed carry permits issued by Georgia and Florida. It initially filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Aug. 24 after the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit backed Minnesota, but the Supreme Court’s orders posted Monday listed it as among cases the justices elected not to hear.

“In the Eighth Circuit’s view, an individual’s Second Amendment rights are confined to the borders of the state of where he holds a firearm permit,” the petition said. “No matter how many times an ordinary law-abiding citizen proves his worth through a state’s firearm licensing process, another state can force him to do it again before he can exercise his ‘constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense.’”

While we had hoped the Supreme Court would take up Johnson v. Jacobson, a denial of certiorari is not a decision on the merits, and the question at the heart of this case remains open: whether a law-abiding American forfeits his Second Amendment right to self-defense simply by crossing a state line,” Liberty Justice Center attorney Ryan Morrison told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Jeffrey Johnson came forward because, as a long-haul trucker holding valid Florida and Georgia carry licenses, he cannot lawfully protect himself while driving through Minnesota — and he is far from alone, as Minnesota declines to recognize permits from 15 other states. We remain confident that this question will reach the Court in time, and we will keep doing the work to get it there.”

The justices declined to comment on their decision to not hear the case, which allows the Eighth Circuit’s ruling to stand.

The high court is still considering other cases, including Duncan v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds that has been discussed for 24 conferences, a record. A similar ban in New Jersey was thrown out by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Second Amendment grounds in a July 17 ruling, creating a “circuit split.”

“Circuit splits” occur when federal appeals courts disagree on rulings, making it more likely the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Two other major cases with Second Amendment implications also feature “circuit splits.” In Beckwith v. Frey, a case challenging the constitutionality of Maine’s three-day waiting period on firearms purchases, the waiting period was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a waiting period on firearms purchases in August 2025 while overruling a decision in favor of New Mexico by Senior United States District Judge James O. Browning, a George W. Bush appointee.

In Daniel Defense v. Lowy, a federal district judge tossed the lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sided with Lowy, prompting the firearms company to appeal to the Supreme Court in August, citing a conflict with other federal appellate courts.

“The Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits all hold that when a third party not before the court directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries, Article III requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s challenged conduct had a determinative or coercive effect on that third party,” the company’s petition said. “The Fourth Circuit expressly rejected that standard here, joining the Second Circuit in holding that traceability is satisfied in such cases so long as a plaintiff plausibly alleges that the defendants’ conduct had some kind of ‘predictable effect’ on the individual who actually injured them. And since the decision below came down, the Ninth Circuit has cast its lot with the latter group.”

“There is thus now a 3-3 split on the appropriate standard for determining whether traceability is satisfied in cases where someone other than the defendant bears direct responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries,” the petition continued.

The Supreme Court’s next conference, where they will debate whether or not to accept cases, will be on Friday.

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated with comments from Liberty Justice Center attorney Ryan Morrison.