The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to honor concealed-carry permits from other states, leaving a long-haul trucker’s Second Amendment claim unresolved and the Eighth Circuit’s ruling intact.
On Monday the justices posted an orders list that passed over the petition from the Liberty Justice Center, filed on behalf of trucker Jeffrey Johnson. Minnesota will keep refusing to recognize valid carry licenses issued by Georgia, Florida, and other states, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decision backing that policy stands.
The Daily Caller reported that the high court offered no comment on the denial. A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits. It simply means the justices chose not to take the case now.
For Johnson and other law-abiding drivers who cross state lines for work, the practical result is immediate. A permit that is good in one state can become worthless the moment they enter Minnesota.
Liberty Justice Center sued Minnesota in January 2025 on Johnson’s behalf. The defendant is Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson. The suit targeted the state’s refusal to recognize Johnson’s valid Florida and Georgia concealed-carry licenses.
Johnson is a long-haul trucker. His route takes him through Minnesota. Under current state policy he cannot lawfully carry for self-defense while he is there, even though he already cleared the licensing process in two other states.
Attorney Ryan Morrison of the Liberty Justice Center put the stakes in plain terms after the denial.
"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. 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."
That 15-state figure comes from Morrison. It means a large share of the country’s permit holders face the same wall if their work or travel takes them into Minnesota.
The petition for certiorari, filed Aug. 24 after the Eighth Circuit backed Minnesota, framed the lower court’s approach in stark constitutional language.
"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. 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.’"
In short, the petition argued that Minnesota’s non-recognition rule turns a constitutional right into a local privilege. Cross the wrong line and the right vanishes until you reapply under a new set of state rules.
The Supreme Court has taken other high-profile disputes in recent months, including matters that cleared the way for administration policy on removals and enforcement. One recent order cleared the path for third-country deportations pending full review. Gun-permit reciprocity, by contrast, will wait.
Minnesota has been before the Court on gun rules before, with a very different result for the state. In a separate dispute, the justices rejected Minnesota’s bid to revive a law that barred 18- to 20-year-olds from obtaining public carry permits.
The Washington Examiner reported that the denial left in place a lower-court ruling that the age-based ban violated the Second Amendment. Young adults kept the win; the state lost the appeal.
That earlier case was Worth v. Harrington. Breitbart noted the Supreme Court denied certiorari and left intact an Eighth Circuit panel decision striking down the 18-to-20 ban under the standard set in Bruen. The same circuit that sided with Minnesota on out-of-state permits had already told Minnesota it could not lock young adults out of carry rights.
So Minnesota’s record is not uniform. On age limits, the state’s restriction fell and the justices let that defeat stand. On reciprocity for lawful permit holders from Georgia, Florida, and elsewhere, the state’s restriction survives because the justices declined to hear Johnson’s challenge.
Lawful residents and workers who already passed background checks and training in their home states are the ones left exposed. The policy treats their permits as worthless paper once they hit Minnesota’s border.
The Court is not done with firearms litigation. It is still considering Duncan v. Bonta, the challenge to California’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. That case has been discussed for 24 conferences, a record, without a final grant or denial noted in the same reporting.
Related lower-court fights continue elsewhere. On July 17 the Third Circuit threw out a similar magazine ban in New Jersey on Second Amendment grounds, creating a circuit split with other courts. The First Circuit upheld Maine’s three-day waiting period on firearms purchases in Beckwith v. Frey. In August 2025 the Tenth Circuit struck down a waiting period on gun purchases in a New Mexico matter, overruling a district decision that had favored the state.
Firearms maker Daniel Defense has also sought Supreme Court review in Daniel Defense v. Lowy. Its petition described a 3-3 split among federal appeals courts on the “traceability” standard under Article III when a third party, not the defendant, directly caused the plaintiff’s injury. The Fourth Circuit sided against the company after a district judge tossed the suit; other circuits apply a stricter test.
Those disputes matter. They are not substitutes for the core question Johnson raised: whether a clean-record citizen forfeits the right to bear arms for self-defense the moment he drives into a non-recognition state. The Court has also fielded repeated administration requests on enforcement and institutional rules, from letting DHS move on voter-roll integrity to prison policy and election-mail procedures. The reciprocity petition did not make the cut this round.
Because the justices denied review, the Eighth Circuit’s decision remains controlling in its region. Minnesota’s non-recognition policy stays in force. Johnson still cannot rely on his Florida and Georgia permits inside that state.
Morrison was careful on that point. A cert denial is not a blessing of the lower court’s reasoning. It is a choice not to decide. The open question he named, whether crossing a state line strips a law-abiding American of the right to self-defense, is still open for another day and another vehicle.
The Court’s next conference on whether to accept cases was set for Friday after the Monday orders. Other petitions will be weighed. Johnson’s will not be among them unless it returns in a new form.
Permit holders who travel for a living now have a clear map of risk. States that honor out-of-state licenses leave the right portable. States that refuse turn the right into a local checkpoint. Minnesota has chosen the checkpoint model, and for now the Supreme Court has left that choice alone. Separate fights over administration authority have produced faster action at the same Court, including a 5-4 order clearing White House ballroom construction and other emergency applications. Carry reciprocity received no such rescue.
Drivers, salesmen, and families who already complied with licensing rules in their home states remain the people who absorb the cost. They are not criminals. They are the ones told to disarm because a state line exists.
Another round of briefing on a related institutional fight saw the Trump team ask the justices to restrict inmate sex-change procedures in federal prisons, further proof the Court remains a busy venue for contested policy. The Johnson petition simply did not advance.
When a constitutional right depends on which side of a highway marker you stand on, something in the system has failed ordinary people who did everything the law asked of them.