The U.S. Supreme Court was set on Jan. 20 to weigh a challenge to a Hawaii law restricting the carry of handguns on private property that is open to the public, such as most businesses, without the owner's permission. The court will hear arguments in an appeal by the challengers - three Hawaii residents with concealed-carry licenses and a Honolulu-based gun rights advocacy group - of a lower court's ruling against them. The lower court found that Hawaii's measure likely complies with the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Hawaii's law requires "express authorization" to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public, either as verbal or written authorization, including "clear and conspicuous signage." Hawaii argued in court papers that its law strikes a proper balance between "the right to bear arms and property owners' undisputed right to choose whether to permit armed entry onto their property." The plaintiffs sued to challenge Hawaii's restrictions weeks after Gov. Josh Green signed the measure into law in 2023. They are being backed by President Donald Trump's administration, which argued in court papers that Hawaii's law "deprives individuals who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights of their ability to go about their daily lives." A federal judge preliminarily blocked Hawaii's restrictions. But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely ruled against the law's challengers, prompting their appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not take up an aspect of the legal challenge that focused on the law's provisions banning the carrying of handguns at beaches, bars and other sensitive places. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, widened gun rights in three major rulings in 2008, 2010 and most recently in 2022. The plaintiffs in the Hawaii case have cited that 2022 ruling's holding that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. That landmark 6-3 decision, called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, was powered by the court's six conservatives, over dissents from the three liberal justices. The Bruen decision invalidated New York state's limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. In doing so, the court created a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying that restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," not simply advance an important government interest. The court in 2024 ruled 8-1 that a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns satisfied the court's stringent history-and-tradition test.

A federal judge on Jan. 15 dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit that sought an unredacted statewide voter registration list from California. U.S. District Judge David Carter in Santa Ana said the Justice Department's claims were insufficient under federal civil rights law and voting laws, adding that its demands, which included voter names, dates of birth, driver’s license information and partial social security numbers violated privacy laws. The Trump administration's Justice Department filed lawsuits against California and several other mostly Democratic-led states in September for not providing voter registration lists. It cited laws it said allowed the attorney general to demand statewide voter lists and to ensure states effectively maintained voter data. California resisted the request, arguing it was not legally entitled to hand over the voter information. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Reuters reported in September that the DOJ was in talks with a division of the Department of Homeland Security about transferring voter roll data for use in criminal and immigration investigations. Trump and many of his allies have long spread unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, including that immigrants living illegally in the country are voting in large numbers.

Prominent Washington lawyer Tom Goldstein is set to square off with federal prosecutors on Jan. 15 as a jury trial begins on criminal charges stemming from the veteran U.S. Supreme Court advocate's side career as a high-stakes poker player. Jurors in Greenbelt, Maryland, will hear arguments from Goldstein's legal team and prosecutors who allege he failed to report millions of dollars he won in poker matches, lied on loan documents and made improper payments through his law firm Goldstein & Russell to fund a lavish lifestyle. Goldstein, who has argued more than 40 cases at the U.S. Supreme Court and founded the SCOTUSblog news and analysis website, pleaded not guilty and has twice turned down an offer of a plea deal by the Justice Department. In a pretrial filing, he said "the government has cherry-picked a few clerical errors and charged them as a crime." The trial is expected to last about four weeks before U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. Goldstein's indictment in January stunned Washington's legal community, where he was widely seen as one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. Goldstein was part of the team that represented Al Gore in the Supreme Court fight over George W. Bush's victory in the 2000 presidential election. His other clients have included Google and "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. He retired from his law practice in 2023. Goldstein was charged in the final days of Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration. In a November 2024 opinion column in the New York Times, Goldstein urged prosecutors to drop criminal cases against Trump after his election victory, writing that voters had already rendered the "ultimate verdict."