What did the Pennsylvania Superior Court decide in the 2025 Philadelphia open‑carry case and where can the opinion be read?
Executive summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Commonwealth v. Sumpter, vacated Riyadh Sumpter’s conviction and held that 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108—the statute requiring a special license to openly carry a firearm in Philadelphia—was unconstitutional as applied because it placed Philadelphia residents at a special disadvantage in exercising their Second Amendment rights under the Equal Protection Clause [1] [2]. The 2–1 panel stopped short of striking the statute down on its face, meaning arrests under §6108 may still be prosecuted unless and until higher courts or the legislature act [3] [2].
1. Background: the case and the narrow factual posture
The appeal arose after Philadelphia police observed Sumpter walking with the handle of a handgun protruding from his waistband and he was convicted for openly carrying without a license under §6108, a provision that uniquely applies to Philadelphia as a “city of the first class” [1] [2]. Sumpter could not obtain a carry license due to age restrictions (license applicants must be 21), creating a concrete as‑applied challenge rather than a facial attack on the statute [4] [2].
2. The decision: what the Superior Court actually held
In a published 2–1 decision, Judges Anne E. Lazarus and Victor P. Stabile formed the majority holding that §6108 is unconstitutional as applied because it impermissibly treats citizens differently by zip code and therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; the court vacated Sumpter’s sentence [5] [3] [2]. The opinion expressly framed the right to carry in public as a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny and concluded the Commonwealth failed to show a compelling interest that justified a Philadelphia‑only licensing requirement [2] [4].
3. Legal reasoning and precedents the court relied on
The majority relied on recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence and state‑constitutional analysis to treat public carry as a fundamental right, applying strict scrutiny to Philadelphia’s unique licensing regime and finding the Commonwealth’s public‑safety justifications insufficient [3] [2]. The opinion also engaged with prior Pennsylvania precedent—explicitly distancing itself from earlier Superior Court rulings that applied a lower standard to §6108—and addressed Bruen‑era requirements for historical analogues [1] [2].
4. Limits, dissent, and immediate implications
The court’s ruling was deliberately limited: it is an as‑applied holding that vacates Sumpter’s conviction but does not declare §6108 facially invalid, a distinction emphasized by the majority and by subsequent reporting noting prosecutors still retain tools to charge other carry offenses and that arrests can continue pending further litigation [3] [6] [7]. The decision produced a dissent and invites further review: advocates expect appeals to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court while opponents urge reversal, so the broader legal effect across Pennsylvania remains unsettled [1] [4] [3].
5. Where to read the full opinion and official documents
The Superior Court’s written opinion in Commonwealth v. Sumpter is available as the court’s published slip opinion (J‑A14011‑24, 2025 PA Super 124) on the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System site; the PDF of the opinion can be read directly at the state courts’ opinion repository [1]. Multiple contemporaneous news and legal commentaries summarize and analyze the ruling, including Law360, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and several legal blogs, but the authoritative source for the court’s holdings and reasoning is the Superior Court opinion itself [5] [3] [2].