The Wire · CalGunHub

Ninth Circuit panel voids Hawaii permit and inspection rules; opinion later vacated

Published March 14, 2025 · Updated October 12, 2026

A divided panel held two Hawaii handgun acquisition requirements facially unconstitutional, but the opinion was vacated and later reversed en banc.

Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting

Who this affects: The panel decision described here is vacated and has no legal effect. The later en banc ruling upheld Hawaii's requirements, and it is the decision that California's stayed waiting-period case, Richards v. Bonta, was waiting on. Any effect in California depends on further proceedings in that case. This is general information, not legal advice.

On March 14, 2025, a divided Ninth Circuit panel decided Yukutake v. Lopez, No. 21-16756, 130 F.4th 1077 (2025). The panel affirmed summary judgment for the Hawaii plaintiffs, holding that the 30-day validity limit on handgun acquisition permits and the in-person police inspection requirement are facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, according to the opinion and an analysis by Snell and Wilmer. The panel opinion was vacated on July 28, 2025, when the court granted rehearing en banc. On September 22, 2026, the en banc court held 6-5, in an opinion by Judge Owens, that both requirements are constitutional, reversed the district court's injunction, and remanded; plaintiffs' counsel stated an intent to seek certiorari, according to the en banc opinion. The case matters to California litigation because Richards v. Bonta, the challenge to California's 10-day waiting period, was stayed pending this en banc decision. As of October 12, 2026, the panel decision described here remains vacated and the en banc ruling controls.

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