The 2026 Supreme Court -- a ‘C Minus’ at Best

The Supreme Court’s just-concluded term produced several important victories for constitutional principles. Unfortunately, two catastrophic failures dragged the Court’s overall performance down. 

Don Brown | July 8, 2026

The Supreme Court’s just-concluded term produced several important victories for constitutional principles. Unfortunately, two catastrophic failures on issues central to the integrity of our elections and the preservation of the republic dragged the Court’s overall performance down to a C-minus at best. Had the justices gotten those two cases right, the term would have been remembered as a strong one. Instead, it will be remembered for what the Court refused to do.

On the Second Amendment, the Court earned a solid A-plus. In Wolford v. Lopez, the justices struck down Hawaii’s law that effectively banned licensed concealed-carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public -- grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations -- without the owner’s express consent. This was a clear and correct extension of the right to keep and bear arms into the daily lives of law-abiding citizens.

The Court also handed down a strong decision in the case challenging the broad application of federal firearms prohibitions based on use of controlled substances. The government’s theory was breathtakingly expansive, and it wasn’t just about marijuana. Even minor Schedule V substances or prescription medications (such as Ambien taken by one spouse that belonged to the other, or shared antibiotics like penicillin or amoxycillin) could potentially disqualify a person from owning a firearm. The Court correctly rejected this vague and overbroad approach. These rulings reaffirm that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental individual right, not a privilege subject to bureaucratic second-guessing.

The Court also deserves an A-plus for its decisions protecting women and girls in sports. In West Virginia v. B.P.J. and the companion Idaho case (Little v. Hecox), the justices upheld state laws that........

© American Thinker