Thread by @hannahhill_sc

Today SCOTUS denied cert to the Hawaii "spirit of Aloha" case due to its interlocutory posture. BUT we got a Thomas/Alito statement with some pretty interesting things - including that "Americans need not engage in empty formalities before they can invoke their constitutional rights." 🧵

The Hawaii Supreme Court had ruled that Wilson couldn't claim the unconstitutionality of the HI licensing scheme as a defense for not having a permit, because he didn't even apply for one. Trouble is...

The Supreme Court had already pointed out in Bruen that the Hawaii scheme was more or less the same as the New York scheme - meaning that it was a de facto ban.

From today's statement: "[Hawaii's] conclusion contravenes the settled principle that Americans need not engage in empty formalities before they can invoke their constitutional rights, and it wrongly reduces the Second Amendment to a 'second-class right.'"

Continued: "Although the interlocutory posture of the petition weighs against correcting this error now, I would grant certiorari in an appropriate case to reaffirm that the Second Amendment warrants the same respect as any other constitutional right."

The HI Supreme Court's barely veiled criticism of Bruen was NOT lost on Justice Thomas, who specifically called out the "spirit of Aloha" part.

I think it's safe to say Thomas was not impressed by Hawaii's tossing these anti-SCOTUS hand grenades, then ducking behind a lame state-law standing analysis to duck the issue.

This is significant. Here we have Justice Thomas applying 5th Amendment case law to the 2nd Amendment. (If only it were a full ruling and not a non-binding statement from Thomas!)

Thomas clinches the analysis by calling out the Hawaii Supreme Court's "blatant defiance” for "resisting our decisions."

He reiterates that the interlocutory posture of the case means it's inappropriate for the Supreme Court to correct this error, but states "In an appropriate case, however, we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes."

And then we have this closing sentence, which is clearly a message to ALL the lower courts on the 2A issue, not just Hawaii: "And, this Court’s intervention clearly remains imperative, given lower courts’ continued insistence on treating the Second Amendment 'right so cavalierly.'"

Here's hoping this is a signal that the Court is planning to take Snope. Your honors, you can't keep saying it's not a second-class right and yet not intervening to enforce it. We need action!