The Wire · CalGunHub

California SB 2 Sensitive Places Litigation Resumes After Supreme Court Ruling

Published July 15, 2026 · Updated October 12, 2026

The consolidated In re Senate Bill 2 Litigation returned to district court after the Supreme Court invalidated Hawaii's private-property default carry rule.

Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting

Who this affects: For Californians who carry firearms in public, the resumption of the case means the rules for so-called sensitive places remain governed by the existing injunction posture while the district court weighs the merits in light of the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision striking down Hawaii's private-property default rule. According to a state Department of Justice information bulletin cited in coverage, 20 of the 26 listed restricted locations are currently treated as enforceable. The district court had not issued a merits ruling or altered the injunction as of late September 2026, and the timeline for a decision is unclear. This is general information, not legal advice.

The consolidated litigation over California's Senate Bill 2 restrictions on carrying firearms in listed public places came back to life in federal district court on July 15, 2026, following a Supreme Court decision in a Hawaii case that had kept the proceedings frozen.

The case, which now carries the caption In re Senate Bill 2 Litigation, No. 8:23-cv-01696 in the Central District of California, folds together challenges that include the May v. Bonta matters, according to a status summary maintained by CCWCalc. It had been stayed while the justices considered Wolford v. Lopez, in which the Court voted 6-3 on June 25, 2026, to strike down Hawaii's rule treating private property as off-limits to licensed carriers unless the owner affirmatively allows firearms.

The district court has not yet said how it will apply Wolford to California's list of restricted locations. As of the most recent docket activity cited in the status summary, dated September 21, 2026, the court had issued no merits ruling and had not altered the existing injunction, according to CCWCalc.

A California Department of Justice information bulletin referenced in the summary treats 20 of the 26 restricted places listed in the litigation as currently enforceable, according to the same source.

What happens next turns on the district court's application of Wolford to Senate Bill 2's location list. No schedule for a merits decision has been reported, and the injunction posture from earlier proceedings remains in place while the case moves forward. Coverage of the resumption is limited to a single tracker, so details beyond the docket dates and the bulletin reference are sparse.

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