On April 21, 2025, the United States Supreme Court made headlines without saying a word. By refusing to hear the case Worth v. Jacobson, the high court let stand an earlier decision by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down Minnesota’s minimum age requirement for concealed carry permits. The ruling now forces Minnesota to accept concealed carry permit applications from 18- to 20-year-old adults, effectively dismantling the state’s age-based restriction for carrying handguns in public.
A Major Moment
This seemingly quiet move has quickly become a major moment in the ongoing fight over Second Amendment rights. As Chip Brownlee reported for The Trace, the case’s outcome is already being seen as a “resounding victory” by gun rights advocates and a signal that similar restrictions in other states could soon face legal threats.
What the Supreme Court Didn’t Say – Matters
Brownlee noted that the Supreme Court justices did not issue any written explanation for refusing the case. That’s not uncommon, but in controversial cases involving constitutional rights, it’s sometimes telling. According to Duke University law professor Joseph Blocher, the justices might be choosing to “wait it out” or pick a different case to address the broader constitutional questions about age and gun rights.
From a legal strategy standpoint, it’s a powerful reminder that inaction by the Supreme Court can be just as impactful as a ruling. As Richard Hayes from Armed Attorneys pointed out in his recent video, sometimes letting a lower court ruling stand is a subtle way of upholding it, at least for now.
Minnesota Must Now Accept Applications from Young Adults
As of this ruling, Minnesota must start processing concealed carry permits for otherwise qualified applicants aged 18 to 20. According to Hayes and co-host Leslie Cross, the lower court had already declared that Minnesota’s age requirement violated both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that the state failed to justify why this age group should be denied the right to carry, especially in light of recent Supreme Court precedent set by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The legal team representing the young plaintiffs, backed by groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition, argued successfully that such restrictions are inconsistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. The court agreed – and now, with the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the decision stands.
The 8th Circuit’s Ruling Creates a Ripple Effect
Chip Brownlee highlighted that this case adds to an already widening split among federal courts over age-based gun restrictions. The 3rd and 5th Circuits have both struck down similar laws, while the 10th and 11th Circuits have upheld them. This circuit conflict usually encourages the Supreme Court to step in, but not this time.
Megan Walsh of the University of Minnesota’s Gun Violence Prevention Law Clinic told The Trace she doesn’t believe this is the end of the road for age-limit litigation. Rather, she suspects the Court is biding its time for a more comprehensive case, perhaps one involving both purchasing and carrying, not just permits.
Iowa and Texas Follow Suit with Reforms
The ripple effect didn’t stop in Minnesota. In the same Armed Attorneys episode, Hayes and Cross explained that Iowa passed House File 924, which lowers the minimum handgun ownership age to 18 effective July 1. Meanwhile, Texas is dealing with legal gray zones following rulings that 18- to 20-year-olds can carry, but the state laws still show 21 as the minimum age.
Cross shared a personal legal experience involving a 19-year-old client arrested in Texas despite holding a lawfully owned firearm. Her case was dismissed, but it highlights the confusion and inconsistency that comes when court rulings and state statutes aren’t aligned.
Texas in Limbo: A Legal Patchwork for Young Adults
Texas presents a particularly frustrating legal landscape. Though federal courts have issued injunctions preventing enforcement of age-based bans, local district attorneys are still pressing charges against young adults. As Cross pointed out, there’s a gap between court orders and what’s actually written in the state’s penal code.
To fix this, Texas Representative West Verdell introduced House Bill 2470, aimed at codifying the current state of the law. Until something like HB 2470 passes, young Texans risk legal trouble simply because the statutes haven’t caught up to the courts.
Historical Context: Does the Constitution Support Age Limits?
The central constitutional question that drives these cases is whether age-based restrictions on the right to bear arms align with the historical tradition of gun regulation. Under the Bruen ruling, gun laws must be rooted in historical precedent to survive constitutional scrutiny.
In the Minnesota case, the courts found no compelling evidence that age limits like Minnesota’s existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. As Cross explained, “This is not something the Founders would have regulated,” reinforcing the view that these restrictions are out of step with constitutional principles.
What’s Next for the Supreme Court and Age-Based Challenges?
Despite the Court’s silence on this particular case, legal scholars expect another age-limit challenge will reach them soon. According to Andrew Willinger of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, the Court may be holding out for a case that also involves purchasing restrictions, which might present clearer historical context and broader implications.
That strategy makes sense. The Court often waits for the right “vehicle” to settle constitutional questions, especially when circuit courts are split and lower court rulings are piling up.
A Win That Feels Like a Warning
From a broader perspective, this Supreme Court move feels less like a bold stand and more like a gentle nudge – a signal that lower courts have the green light to continue ruling in favor of young adults’ gun rights. It’s a tactical delay, not a rejection. But it also leaves the door wide open for legal confusion, inconsistent enforcement, and unnecessary arrests, especially in states like Texas.
The message seems to be this: Gun rights for 18- to 20-year-olds are gaining ground, but the fight is far from over. States, courts, and lawmakers all have work to do to clarify, codify, and align laws with constitutional rulings.
Clarity Is Desperately Needed
If there’s one thing this case proves, it’s that the current patchwork of state and federal gun laws is incredibly murky. Whether you support or oppose the rights of 18-year-olds to carry guns, the law needs to be clear, consistent, and communicated. As Hayes and Cross emphasized, no one benefits when young adults are arrested, dragged through the court system, and then later told, “Oh, you were right all along.”
Gun rights or not, every American deserves to know where the law stands – and right now, that line is anything but straight.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.