Rhode v. Bonta is the federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s requirement that residents pass a background check before every ammunition purchase and the state’s ban on importing ammunition from out of state. A Ninth Circuit three-judge panel struck those laws down in July 2025, but the full court granted rehearing en banc, which vacated the panel opinion and left the laws in force. Oral arguments before the en banc court took place on March 25, 2026, in Pasadena, and no decision had issued as of the most recent available information.1United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Status of Pending En Banc Cases Every ammunition purchase in California still requires an eligibility check through a licensed vendor.
What the Lawsuit Challenges
The case targets two connected pieces of California’s ammunition regime. The first is the eligibility check required before every ammunition sale or transfer, in effect since July 1, 2019. Buyers whose information matches an entry in the state’s Automated Firearms System pay $5 for a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check; buyers without a matching firearm record must undergo a slower and more thorough Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check that cross-references state and federal records.2State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Ammunition Purchase Authorization Program
The second is the import restriction. California residents cannot personally bring ammunition into the state from another jurisdiction. Online and out-of-state orders are legal, but the shipment has to be routed to a licensed California ammunition vendor, who conducts the eligibility check before releasing the product. Direct-to-door shipment is prohibited, and a first violation of the personal-import ban is an infraction, with later offenses chargeable as either infractions or misdemeanors.3California Legislative Information. California Code Penal Code – PEN 303124California Legislative Information. California Code Penal Code – PEN 30314
The District Court Injunction
On January 30, 2024, Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California permanently enjoined enforcement of the background check and import provisions, specifically Penal Code sections 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and sections 30312(a)-(b) and 30314(a).5Everytownlaw.org. Rhode v. Bonta District Court Opinion
Benitez applied the framework from the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, once a regulation covers conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must show the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.6Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen The court found California had not identified any historical analogue for a background check before every ammunition transaction and pointed to the system’s pattern of incorrectly denying eligible buyers as evidence that the burden on constitutional rights was real rather than theoretical.
For a few hours after the ruling, purchases without background checks and direct out-of-state shipments were technically permitted. That window closed almost immediately.
The Ninth Circuit Stay and Panel Ruling
Within a day of the injunction, the California Attorney General filed an emergency motion to stay the ruling. The Ninth Circuit granted the stay, restoring the background check system while the appeal proceeded.
On July 24, 2025, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed Benitez’s decision, holding that California’s ammunition background check regime facially violates the Second Amendment.7United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Rhode v. Bonta At Bruen’s first step, the panel concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire ammunition because the right to keep and bear operable arms necessarily includes obtaining what makes them functional. California’s regime, the panel wrote, “meaningfully constrains” that right by requiring an in-person check and fee before every purchase, with no statutory deadline for the state to process the check.
At the second step, the panel rejected each historical analogue California offered. Revolutionary War-era loyalty oaths targeted specific groups suspected of disloyalty and led to permanent disarmament rather than per-transaction screening. Concealed carry laws imposed a one-time check, not a check before every purchase. Surety laws required a judicial finding of dangerousness before restricting anyone. And late nineteenth-century vendor licensing schemes placed recordkeeping burdens on sellers, not background check obligations on every buyer.
The En Banc Rehearing
On December 1, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. En banc rehearings are relatively rare and are generally reserved for cases the court considers exceptionally important or where the panel opinion may conflict with existing circuit precedent.1United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Status of Pending En Banc Cases
Two consequences follow from that grant. First, the panel’s July 2025 opinion striking down the laws was vacated, so it is no longer binding precedent. Second, the case now sits before the full court rather than three judges. Oral arguments were calendared for March 25, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. in Pasadena. A decision had not issued as of the most recent available information.
Whichever way the en banc court rules, the losing side is expected to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. That means the practical status of California’s ammunition laws is unlikely to change soon regardless of the outcome, because an unfavorable en banc ruling for the state would almost certainly be met with another stay pending Supreme Court review, and an unfavorable ruling for the plaintiffs would send them to the same Court.
What This Means for Buyers Right Now
Nothing has changed at the point of sale. Every ammunition purchase in California still requires an eligibility check processed through a licensed ammunition vendor. Out-of-state and online orders still must ship to a California dealer, who runs the check before releasing the ammunition and may charge a processing fee on top of the state’s $5 standard check fee. Personally carrying ammunition into California without routing it through a licensed vendor remains illegal.2State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Ammunition Purchase Authorization Program3California Legislative Information. California Code Penal Code – PEN 30312
The standard check fee was originally $1 and rose to $5 effective January 1, 2024, after the Department of Justice determined the lower fee did not cover operating costs.8State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Regulations: Ammunition Purchase Fee Buyers presenting a California ID or driver’s license marked “Federal Limits Apply” need supplemental documentation such as a birth certificate or passport to establish lawful presence.9California Department of Justice. Finding of Emergency Title 11, Division 5, Chapter 4
Buyers who want to reduce time at the counter can apply for a Certificate of Eligibility from the Department of Justice, which allows a faster verification at the point of sale. The initial application, which includes fingerprinting, is $71, and renewal is $22.10State of California – Department of Justice. Certificate of Eligibility