The Wire · CalGunHub

Federal judge pauses May v. Bonta SB 2 trial case pending Supreme Court ruling

Published October 14, 2025 · Updated October 12, 2026

The Central District of California stayed the merits case over SB 2 while the Supreme Court considered Wolford v. Lopez.

Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting

Who this affects: The stay meant the Central District of California would not move the May v. Bonta challenge to SB 2 toward a final merits judgment while the Supreme Court considered a closely related question. SB 2's sensitive-places restrictions and licensing provisions continued to apply to California concealed-carry applicants and permit holders under the earlier Ninth Circuit ruling, while the separate injunction against the private-property default rule remained in place. This is general information, not legal advice.

A federal judge in the Central District of California has stayed the merits proceedings in May v. Bonta, No. SACV 23-01696-CJC, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Wolford v. Lopez, according to a litigation status log maintained by CA Gun Law.

The order, issued by Judge Cormac Carney, pauses the trial-court case challenging Senate Bill 2's sensitive-places list and concealed-carry licensing provisions. The case had already produced a preliminary injunction that the Ninth Circuit partly affirmed and partly reversed on September 6, 2024, with the mandate issuing January 23, 2025. In that appellate ruling, the Ninth Circuit left most of the sensitive-places list in effect but affirmed the injunction against SB 2's private-property default rule, which bars licensed carriers from carrying on private property open to the public without express owner permission.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Wolford on October 3, 2025, limited to the question of whether such private-property default rules are constitutional, and the district court's stay placed the California case on hold until that question was resolved.

Update: The Supreme Court decided Wolford on June 25, 2026, striking down Hawaii's parallel default rule and removing the stated basis for the stay. Plaintiffs, represented by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an advocacy group, publicly said they intended to push the case to final judgment. As of October 12, 2026, no published report of a post-Wolford merits ruling in May had appeared.

The stay was administrative in nature: it halted progress toward a final judgment on the constitutionality of SB 2's location restrictions and licensing rules rather than deciding any issue. Wolford presented the justices with the constitutionality of a Hawaii law closely resembling SB 2's private-property default rule, which is why the district court concluded the California case should wait. The status log is the only source located for this development, so the account should be treated as preliminary.

Informational only, not legal advice. Facts are attributed to the sources listed above.