Supreme Court Won't Hear Washington DUI Gun-Ban Challenge

If you live in Washington, or you've followed the court fights over who can be barred from owning a gun, here's a quick update. On Nov. 9, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Holloway v. Brown, No. 26-300, a challenge to Washington's law that takes away firearm-possession rights after repeat DUI-related offenses.

Bottom line: Washington's law stays in effect. The Washington Supreme Court upheld it in June 2026, and that ruling now stands.

What the Supreme Court actually did#

Jackson Holloway asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Washington Supreme Court's decision. That request is called a petition for a writ of certiorari, or "cert" for short. The docket shows the petition was filed on Sept. 2, 2026, Washington waived its right to respond, the case was distributed for the justices' Nov. 6 conference, and on Nov. 9 the Court entered: "Petition DENIED."

The case appears in the Court's official Nov. 9 order list under "Certiorari Denied," with no noted dissent and no written statement from any justice.

What a cert denial does and doesn't mean#

This is the part that trips people up. The Supreme Court doesn't have to take every case. Under its own Rule 10, "Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion," and the Court grants it "only for compelling reasons."

So when the Court says no:

• It does: leave the lower court's decision in place. Here, that's the Washington Supreme Court's ruling that the law is constitutional as applied to McLellan and Holloway.
• It doesn't: issue a Supreme Court opinion on whether the law is constitutional. The Court gave no reasons, so the denial doesn't create a nationwide Supreme Court rule about DUI-based gun bans.
• It doesn't: settle the question everywhere. Other courts can still take up similar laws, and the Supreme Court could choose to hear a similar issue in a future case.

The Washington law in question#

The law is RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i)(D). Under it, a person commits second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm if they own, have in their possession or control, or receive a firearm after being convicted of certain listed misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor crimes "committed on or after July 23, 2023." One item on that list is "any prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055(14) if committed within seven years of a conviction for any other prior offense under RCW 46.61.5055."

In plain English, as the Washington Supreme Court described it, the law "temporarily prohibits anyone convicted twice within seven years of a DUI offense from possessing a firearm." (Slip op. at 2.) The court noted that the "prior offenses" that count include more than DUI itself, such as physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, vehicular homicide and assault, and some reckless or negligent driving convictions that were amended from an original DUI charge. (Slip op. at 2 n.1.)

The court also explained that the ban isn't permanent: people disarmed under this statute "may petition to have their firearm rights restored after five years of law-abiding behavior in the community." (Slip op. at 3.)

How the Washington Supreme Court ruled#

Two men, Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway, applied for concealed carry permits, which were denied under RCW 9.41.040, and then sued, challenging the law as applied to them. The court said McLellan had three DUI convictions within seven years and Holloway had two. (Slip op. at 3.)

On June 11, 2026, the court ruled 5–4 against them, reversing a Thurston County Superior Court ruling in their favor. Applying the Supreme Court's history-based test from Bruen and Rahimi, the majority held that "the State's historical analogs are sufficient to uphold the law" (slip op. at 10) and concluded that the "temporary firearm prohibition for recidivist drunk drivers in RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i)(D) is constitutional without an individualized assessment of McLellan's or Holloway's dangerousness." (Slip op. at 14.)

The four dissenters disagreed sharply. Justice Whitener wrote that "[t]he majority goes too far" (dissent at 1) and that the law "is an outlier" that violates the Second Amendment. (Dissent at 21.)

What happens now#

• The law remains in effect in Washington. Nothing about the Nov. 9 order changes how RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i)(D) reads or applies.
• The state court ruling stands. The Washington Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for entry of judgment in the state's favor (slip op. at 14), and the Supreme Court's denial leaves that ruling undisturbed.
• The bigger question isn't closed. Because a cert denial isn't a ruling on the merits, challenges to similar laws can continue in other courts.

The takeaway#

The Supreme Court's "no" in Holloway v. Brown keeps Washington's repeat-DUI firearm ban in place, but it isn't a Supreme Court decision that such laws are constitutional. If you want the full picture of Washington's rules, see our Washington gun laws page, and for federal prohibited-person rules, see our federal gun laws page. You can follow other cases we're tracking on our pending laws and cases page.

This article explains a court decision for general education. It isn't legal advice. For your own situation, talk to a Washington firearms attorney.