{"id":467,"date":"2026-07-31T13:40:10","date_gmt":"2026-07-31T13:40:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467"},"modified":"2026-07-31T13:40:10","modified_gmt":"2026-07-31T13:40:10","slug":"the-courts-big-gun-cases-and-whats-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467","title":{"rendered":"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

With the justices now on summer recess, let\u2019s take a minute to reflect on the term and its impact on the Second Amendment. As a reminder, the court heard two Second Amendment challenges this time around: United States v. Hemani<\/em> and Wolford v. Lopez<\/em>. These cases mark the first time since the court recognized an individual right to own a firearm for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em> that the justices have decided more than one Second Amendment case in a single term.<\/p>\n

Read more Palestinian authorities seek Supreme Court relief<\/a><\/p>\n

The first Second Amendment decision we got was Hemani<\/em>, decide on June 18, where the justices unanimously held that the federal government could not prohibit someone who admitted to using marijuana every other day from possessing a firearm. The government offered \u201chabitual drunkard\u201d laws in support of the federal regulation to demonstrate that the law was consistent with a historical tradition of firearm regulation. At the founding, the government contended, there was a practice of disarming individuals who drank so much as to fall under that category \u2013 which they asserted was analogous to drug users like Hemani. The court disagreed – with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the majority that such laws \u201ctargeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.\u201d<\/p>\n

A week later, the justices announced their opinion in Wolford v. Lopez<\/em>. In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down a Hawaii law that made it illegal for anyone to bring their firearm onto private property open to the public without explicit consent from the property owner. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that the Hawaii law implicated the \u201cplain text of the Second Amendment,\u201d and that, because the government failed to produce \u201crelevantly similar\u201d historical analogues in support of the law, it too violated that amendment.<\/p>\n

As a quick reminder, in 2022 the Supreme Court rejected the means-end scrutiny mode of analysis that many of the lower courts had adopted in the years following Heller<\/em>, in which they weighed the government\u2019s justification in passing the law against the right being burdened. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em>, the justices recognized a different framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges, and this is what was applied in both Hemani <\/em>and Lopez<\/em>. Under this framework, courts must first ask whether \u201cthe Second Amendment\u2019s plain text covers an individual\u2019s conduct.\u201d If the answer is no, the analysis comes to an end. If the answer is yes, the conduct is \u201cpresumptively protected\u201d by the Constitution. The government must then show that the regulation \u201cis consistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d If the government can satisfy this burden, then the regulation is enforceable consistent with the Second Amendment. If not, it will be struck down as unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

Now let\u2019s unpack that.<\/p>\n

Bruen<\/em>\u2019s step one \u201cplain text\u201d inquiry<\/strong><\/p>\n

Up until recently, we have not had much guidance on what the \u201cplain text\u201d analysis at step one of Bruen<\/em>\u2019s history and tradition framework was supposed to look like. In Wolford<\/em>, Alito clarified that this inquiry consists of three questions: (1) \u201cdoes the law apply to \u2018the people\u2019\u2014which is to say, \u2018all members of the political community\u2019?\u201d; (2) \u201cdoes it concern any form of \u201cArms,\u201d which he defined as \u201cany weapon customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes\u2019?\u201d; and (3) \u201cdoes the law place any restrictions\u201d on the keeping or bearing of arms?<\/p>\n

Taking these in questions order, the first reveals next to nothing about who counts as part of \u201cthe people\u201d \u2013 we already knew from Heller <\/em>that this group was limited to \u201cmembers of the political community\u201d (for what that means, see my earlier piece). Alito\u2019s description of \u201cArms\u201d (which I have written about here) also went unchallenged.<\/p>\n

The final part of the inquiry was a bit more interesting. According to the opinion, if the law places any <\/em>restriction on the keeping or bearing of arms then this threshold has been met. While that may seem underwhelming, lower courts have not conducted the plain text analysis quite that way. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected a challenge to Maryland\u2019s handgun qualification license requirement because plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the law \u201cinfringe[d]\u201d or \u201ceffectively denie[d]\u201d the right to keep and bear arms. Relatedly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that \u201claws imposing conditions and qualifications on the sale and purchase of arms do not implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment\u201d because Heller <\/em>carved out this category of regulations as \u201cpresumptively lawful.\u201d Alito\u2019s language would seem to throw these rulings into doubt.<\/p>\n

This reading is further enforced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s concurrence, in which she characterized \u2013 in a footnote \u2013 the disagreement between the majority and dissent as being over \u201cwhether courts can smuggle additional limits, drawn from our regulatory tradition, into the plain text stage of the inquiry.\u201d According to Barrett, \u201c[t]he answer is and always has been no.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bruen<\/em>\u2019s step one historical analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

As noted above, if step one is satisfied (that is, the conduct at issue is covered by the Second Amendment), the court moves on to step two, in which the government must show that the regulation being challenged \u201cis consistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the outset, one question that the court again declined to answer in both Hemani <\/em>and Wolford <\/em>is whether the \u201chistorical tradition\u201d being considered dates back to 1791 or 1868. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was ratified in 1791, but \u2013 at that time \u2013 this only applied to the federal government. As held by the court in McDonald v. City of Chicago<\/em>, with the passage of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in 1868 the Second Amendment came to apply to the states. So which date should count? For now, we don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

Read more Completing the picture of the court\u2019s criminal law term<\/a><\/p>\n

Moving on to the substance of the analysis, Wolford <\/em>divides the second step into three more inquiries. First, Alito explains that when considering whether there exists a historical tradition, one may look to see if there is a \u201chistorical analogue\u201d to today\u2019s regulation. When assessing a historical analogue, courts should initially consider \u201cthe number of jurisdictions in which [the analogues] were adopted.\u201d In Bruen <\/em>and again in Wolford<\/em>, the majority cautioned that \u201c[a]n outlier legal rule adopted in a few locales\u201d is not going to be sufficient to demonstrate a historical tradition (though just how many such rules are necessary to have existed the court left unresolved).<\/p>\n

The second and seemingly interrelated inquiry that Alito lays out is \u201cthe extent to which [the analogues] were well-accepted.\u201d Courts may find that there was express acceptance through studying judicial decisions construing such laws, or such acceptance may be implied \u2013 as when a firearm regulation was \u201copen, widespread, and unchallenged.\u201d<\/p>\n

The final question that a court must answer is whether the analogues are \u201c\u2018relevantly similar\u2019 to the modern law.\u201d That is, a court needs to assess \u201chow\u201d and \u201cwhy\u201d the historical analogue restricted the Second Amendment right and ensure that these two reference points are \u201csufficiently similar.\u201d In Wolford<\/em>, the court cautions that this will not be a \u201cmechanical\u201d determination but rather requires \u201can exercise of judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Hemani<\/em>, for example, the court found that the government\u2019s analogues had not met this standard because habitual drunkard laws \u201ctargeted different kinds of people [than casual marijuana users], did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways.\u201d So, we know that a historical analogue cannot differ on all three of these points. But the justices declined to decide whether any one of these differences on their own \u201cwould prove fatal to the government\u2019s cause.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wolford <\/em>provides one more piece of information about how to conduct this historical analysis. In defense of its law, Hawaii cited an 1865 Louisiana statute which made it generally illegal for anyone to carry a firearm onto another person\u2019s property without their express consent. The majority concluded that this law \u201ccarries no weight\u201d because it was \u201cneither widespread nor widely accepted.\u201d But the opinion did not stop there. The law, Alito explained, was enacted as part of the \u201cso-called Black Codes\u201d that confederate states used \u201cto perpetuate the subjugation of blacks\u201d between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Reconstruction era, used as \u201ca tool for disarming\u201d this population of people. Because \u201cthe Republicans in Congress who were responsible for drafting, approving, and securing the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment\u201d were well aware of the importance of the right to keep and bear arms for black individuals at this time, \u201cHawaii\u2019s claim that this tainted artifact illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet the majority does not explain how to evaluate the pedigree of similar history going forward. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked in her dissent, \u201chow [is] one is to go about accurately identifying such a verboten law\u201d? That question is not just academic: it may well emerge again, perhaps in cases involving felon disarmament where lower courts have routinely relied on historical laws disarming categories of people such as Native Americans and religious minorities as a basis for upholding the modern felon-in-possession prohibitions.<\/p>\n

The 2026-27 term and beyond<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hemani <\/em>and Wolford <\/em>certainly provide more information about how to apply Bruen\u2019s <\/em>history-and-tradition analysis, but many questions remain, among them whom the right protects and how far it extends. While we do not know exactly what the next term holds at this point, we do know that we will have more answers to at least one of these questions: what counts as an \u201cArm\u201d for the purpose of the Second Amendment. On June 30, the justices issued an orders list from their \u201cclean-up conference\u201d which included a cert grant in Viramontes v. Cook County<\/em> and Grant v. Higgins<\/em> (these two cases have been consolidated). In those cases, the justices will consider whether the Second Amendment protects the right to possess semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s.<\/p>\n

In the same orders list, the justices declined to hear a number of cases about the constitutionality of restrictions on the ability of individuals under the age of 21 to acquire or possess firearms. Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have granted review in West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives<\/em>, which involves a challenge to the federal law that bans the commercial sale of handguns to such persons. Thomas may not have gotten his way \u2013 for now \u2013 but it is only a matter of time before the court addresses some of the many other lingering questions in this rather fraught area.<\/p>\n

Read more How a seemingly unexciting case on retirement plans could have massive consequences<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With the justices now on summer recess, let\u2019s take a minute to reflect on the term and its impact on the Second Amendment. As a reminder, the court heard two Second Amendment challenges this time around: United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. These cases mark the first time since the court recognized an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":466,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-scotus-focus"],"yoast_head":"\nThe court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"With the justices now on summer recess, let\u2019s take a minute to reflect on the term and its impact on the Second Amendment. As a reminder, the court heard two Second Amendment challenges this time around: United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. These cases mark the first time since the court recognized an […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-31T13:40:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-31T13:40:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467\"},\"wordCount\":1833,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"SCOTUS FOCUS\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467\",\"name\":\"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-31T13:40:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=467#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next - American Service Review","og_description":"With the justices now on summer recess, let\u2019s take a minute to reflect on the term and its impact on the Second Amendment. As a reminder, the court heard two Second Amendment challenges this time around: United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. These cases mark the first time since the court recognized an […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-07-31T13:40:10+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next","datePublished":"2026-07-31T13:40:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467"},"wordCount":1833,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg","articleSection":["SCOTUS FOCUS"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467","name":"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-31T13:40:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/295c83257f3cd1437bc22b5401d3ec6b.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=467#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/466"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}