Summary
This Ninth Circuit en banc opinion addresses a Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s former statute banning butterfly knives. While the appeal was pending, the Hawaii Legislature amended the law to permit open possession and carrying, leaving only a prohibition on concealed carry. The court concluded that the statutory amendment rendered the case moot under Article III, as it granted the plaintiff the relief he sought. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings on any remaining claims under the revised statute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Hawaii's amendment of the butterfly-knife statute rendered plaintiffs' challenge moot.
- Whether the amended statute was substantially similar to the former statute for purposes of determining mootness.
- Whether the court should vacate the district court's judgment and remand for plaintiffs to pursue any residual claims under the amended statute.
- Whether plaintiffs' newly articulated challenges to concealed carrying and the practical feasibility of openly carrying butterfly knives were properly before the en banc court.
Holdings
- The amendment to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-53(a) rendered plaintiffs' challenge to the former butterfly-knife prohibition moot because the amended statute no longer imposed the challenged restrictions on ownership, acquisition, possession, use, or open carrying.
- The en banc court declined to consider plaintiffs' newly articulated challenges to concealed carrying and their assertion that open carrying was impractical because those theories were either waived below or unsupported by the existing record.
- The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded without instructions to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs to assert whatever claims remain available under the amended statute.
- Vacatur was appropriate because the case became moot through legislative action rather than unilateral action by the executive defendants, and plaintiffs identified no record evidence that the legislature acted improperly or was likely to reenact the former prohibitions.
Key quotations
“The amended statute does not restrict the acquisition, possession, and use of butterfly knives, except insofar as a different subsection now prohibits their possession or use by someone “engaged in the commission of a separate felony or misdemeanor,” a prohibition Teter does not challenge.” (125 F.4th at 1307)
“We follow that course here and remand without instructions to dismiss. On remand, Teter may assert whatever claims remain available to him under the new statute.” (125 F.4th at 1313)
Factual background
Hawaii's former statute prohibited knowingly manufacturing, selling, transferring, possessing, or transporting butterfly knives. Andrew Teter and James Grell, Hawaii residents who wished to own butterfly knives, challenged the prohibition under the Second Amendment and sought relief concerning acquisition, possession, carrying, and use. While the appeal was pending, Hawaii amended the statute to prohibit concealed carrying of butterfly knives but no longer prohibit their ownership, acquisition, possession, open carrying, or ordinary use.
Procedural history
The district court granted defendants summary judgment after applying intermediate scrutiny to Hawaii's prohibition on butterfly knives. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, holding that possession of butterfly knives is covered by the Second Amendment and that the State had not identified a historical analogue for an outright ban. The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion. The en banc court held that the statutory amendment mooted the original controversy, vacated the district court judgment, and remanded for further proceedings concerning any claims available under the amended statute.
Remand instructions
The district court's judgment is vacated. The case is remanded without instructions to dismiss so that plaintiffs may assert whatever claims remain available under Hawaii's amended statute, including claims that may require amended pleadings or further factual development. The court expressed no view on the merits of any such claims.