The Supreme Court docket in Johnson v. Jacobson gained a firearm-rights amicus brief on September 15. Six organizations are asking the justices to review an Eighth Circuit decision that let Minnesota require a Georgia truck driver, already licensed in Georgia and Florida, to obtain a Minnesota permit before carrying there. The filing does not change Minnesota law, create nationwide reciprocity, or indicate that the Court will hear the case. It supports a pending petition for certiorari, the formal request for Supreme Court review.
The dispute at the state line
Jeffrey M. Johnson Sr. is a long-haul truck driver who makes several trips to or through Minnesota each year. According to his certiorari petition, he carries a handgun in his truck for self-defense and holds permits from Florida and Georgia. Minnesota recognizes permits from states whose licensing requirements it regards as similar to its own, but it does not recognize those two permits. The petition says Johnson must unload and secure the handgun when entering Minnesota unless he obtains a Minnesota permit.
Johnson challenged Minnesota's reciprocity provision under the Second Amendment. The federal district court dismissed the suit, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed on May 26, 2026. The appellate court treated Minnesota's underlying permit requirement and its reciprocity provision as separate. Because Johnson did not challenge the constitutionality of Minnesota's shall-issue permit system, the court reasoned that reciprocity merely excuses some nonresidents from that otherwise applicable process. On that view, refusing to extend the exemption to Johnson did not itself regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment's text.
Invalid Date
More Articles
The case reached the Supreme Court as docket No. 26-255 on August 27. The docket records that Johnson filed his petition on August 24, Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson waived a response on August 31, and the petition was distributed on September 2 for the justices' September 28 conference. A waiver does not amount to agreement with Johnson, and the Court can still request a response. The immediate question is whether the justices will grant review, not whether Johnson ultimately wins his constitutional claim.
What the supporting brief argues
The September 15 amicus brief was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The groups ask for reversal, or at least a remand requiring the Eighth Circuit to address the historical record they say governs the dispute. Their submission is advocacy by amici, not a factual finding or ruling from the Court.
The brief's central historical argument concerns traveler exceptions. It identifies colonial, state, territorial, and local laws that restricted concealed carry while exempting people traveling on lawful journeys. Among its examples are an East Jersey provision from 1686, Kentucky legislation from 1813, an Indiana law from 1820, and later provisions from Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, California, Nevada, Texas, Arizona Territory, and New Mexico Territory. The amici contend this pattern cuts against requiring an already licensed visitor to complete another state's permit process. Minnesota has not yet answered that argument in the Supreme Court docket.
The organizations also distinguish permission for residents from recognition for visitors. Their brief acknowledges that Bruen can be read to permit objective shall-issue licensing intended to confirm that an applicant is law-abiding. It argues, however, that a state should not repeat that screening for every licensed traveler. The filing says Minnesota accepts nonresident applications but requires personal submission to a sheriff, proof of training and identification, followed by electronic eligibility checks. For owners crossing Minnesota, the present rule remains controlling unless they hold a recognized permit, secure a Minnesota permit, or carry only as otherwise allowed by state law.
What happens next
The amici supplement the historical claim with alleged practical burdens, including differing fees, training rules, in-person requirements, renewal schedules, and states that do not accept nonresident applications. They cite Florida data showing 6,644,160 concealed-weapon permits issued from October 1987 through August 2026, with 24,134 revoked and not reinstated, a 0.36 percent rate. That figure concerns permit revocation, not a direct measure of violent crime, and it comes to the Court as support for the amici's argument that permit holders are generally law-abiding.
No merits briefing or oral argument is scheduled. At the September 28 conference, the justices could deny the petition, grant it, relist it for later consideration, or call for a response before deciding. Four votes are required to grant certiorari. Until an order appears, Johnson's filing presents an unresolved national reciprocity question, while the Eighth Circuit's judgment and Minnesota's existing permit rules remain in place.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
