The Supreme Court declined to address the issue of whether the government can restrict individuals aged 18 to 20 from purchasing or carrying firearms, a matter that has led to differing rulings in lower courts.
The case involved a Minnesota law that prohibits individuals under 21 from carrying guns in public. The Eighth Circuit Court previously invalidated this law, asserting that the Second Amendment mandates the right for those as young as 18 to bear arms. Judge Duane Benton, who authored the ruling, noted that the Second Amendment's language does not specify an age limit and referenced the 26th Amendment, which established 18 as the voting age, as evidence that this age group is part of the national political community.
Lower courts have faced challenges in applying recent Supreme Court rulings that have reshaped Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly a new standard for evaluating the constitutionality of gun control laws. Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized in a 2022 ruling that such laws should be invalidated unless they align with the historical traditions of firearm regulation in the United States.
Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, requested that the Supreme Court either send the case back to the appeals court for further consideration in light of a recent ruling regarding domestic violence restraining orders or hear the case to uphold what he described as a reasonable age regulation for public firearm carry.
In a rare collaboration, the gun rights advocates who successfully challenged the law in the appeals court joined Ellison in urging the Supreme Court to resolve the conflicting lower court decisions and establish a national standard.
The Supreme Court, without comment, rejected the case, Jacobson v. Worth, No. 24-782, but will have future opportunities to consider the constitutionality of firearm restrictions for individuals aged 18 to 21.
In a related ruling in March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a Florida law that bars firearm sales to individuals under 21. Judge William H. Pryor Jr., writing for the majority, analyzed historical context and concluded that individuals under 21 were regarded as minors at the time the Constitution was ratified, which influenced their ability to purchase firearms.
Judge Pryor noted that minors historically lacked the judgment to enter contracts and were dependent on parental consent for exercising rights. He argued that the 26th Amendment does not change the original interpretation of the Constitution.
Conversely, Judge Andrew L. Brasher contended that the legal age of adulthood at the time the Second Amendment was adopted is not relevant; instead, the current status of 18-year-olds as adults should be considered. He argued that the Second Amendment must be understood in light of contemporary definitions of adulthood.
Judge Pryor countered that the original meaning of the Second Amendment should remain constant, asserting that Judge Brasher's perspective would lead to an interpretation that diverges from the text and historical regulatory practices.