Key Takeaways
- The U.S. Supreme Court on November 9 denied review in Holloway v. Brown, ending Jackson W. Holloway’s federal challenge to Washington’s repeat-DUI gun ban.
- Washington’s 2023 law temporarily bars anyone convicted of DUI twice within seven years from possessing a firearm.
- Washington Attorney General Nicholas W. Brown’s office waived the state’s right to respond to Holloway’s petition, and the Court did not request a brief anyway.
- A denial of review is not a ruling on constitutionality and sets no nationwide precedent, leaving the Washington Supreme Court’s decision as the final word.
- Neither Holloway nor co-plaintiff Geoffrey McLellan used a firearm in any of the DUI offenses that resulted in their denied carry permits.
Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Nov. 9, denied review in Holloway v. Brown, ending Jackson W. Holloway’s federal bid to overturn the Washington law that strips gun rights over repeat DUI convictions. The Court’s docket entry for No. 26-300 reads, in full, “Petition DENIED.” No written opinion came with it.
In June I covered Washington’s High Court Says the State Can Take Your Guns Over DUIs, Even If You Never Touched One, the June 11 Washington Supreme Court ruling that upheld a 2023 law temporarily barring anyone convicted of DUI twice within seven years from possessing a firearm. Holloway and co-plaintiff Geoffrey McLellan were both denied carry permits under that law, and as I reported then, neither man used a gun in any of those offenses. What is new is that Holloway took the fight to the highest court in the country, and the justices turned him away.
The docket lays out how it went. Holloway’s attorney, Vitaliy A. Kertchen of Kertchen Law in Tacoma, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Sept. 2. That is the formal request asking the Supreme Court to take up a case. The Court docketed it Sept. 8, listing the lower court as the Supreme Court of Washington and the decision date as June 11, 2026.
On Sept. 27, a friend-of-the-court brief, meaning a filing from someone who is not a party to the case, came in from attorney Corey Biazzo and Huang Tiange.
Then the state passed. Washington’s response was due Oct. 8. That day, the office of Attorney General Nicholas W. Brown filed a waiver of its right to respond. In plain terms, the state told the Court it would not file a brief arguing against review. The docket shows no request from the justices asking the state to file one anyway.
Washington did not think this petition needed an answer. On this docket, it was right.
On Oct. 14, the petition was distributed for the justices’ Nov. 6 conference. That is the private meeting where they vote on which cases to hear. The denial posted three days later.
A denial is not a ruling that the law is constitutional. It means the Court chose not to review this case, and it sets no nationwide precedent. It does leave the Washington Supreme Court’s decision as the final word on Holloway’s challenge, and the law stays in force.
More from USA Carry:
For gun owners in the state, the practical side is simple. If you have a DUI history and are thinking about applying for a permit, know where you stand under Washington concealed carry law before you file. Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing exactly what your own record means under your state’s rules, not finding out at the counter.
The reasoning I flagged in June now stands unchallenged in Washington: a legislature can disarm an entire category of people based on a conviction that never involved a firearm, with no finding that any individual is dangerous. The Supreme Court did not endorse that reasoning on Nov. 9. It declined to touch it.
Bill data from the U.S. Congress via api.congress.gov (public domain).
