Andrew Teter v. Anne E. Lopez
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · No. 20-15948 · 125 F.4th 1301
⚖️Procedural — no merits ruling
Fee ruling turning on prevailing-party status after the case was dismissed as moot; no merits holding.
GunMapUSA assessment of the outcome's direction, not a statement that the court decided rightly or wrongly.
What the court held
After a Ninth Circuit panel held Hawaii's butterfly knife ban unconstitutional, the en banc court vacated that decision and dismissed the case as moot when Hawaii amended the statute. In this order the en banc court unanimously denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), holding that under Lackey v. Stinnie they were not prevailing parties because they never obtained enduring judicial relief on the merits. Separate concurrences disputed the earlier mootness ruling and the court's practice of automatically vacating panel opinions, but agreed no fees were available.
Summarized from the court's opinion.
What this case is about
Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s butterfly knife prohibition
GunMapUSA summary of the issue, not a quotation from the court.
Key Dates
- 2025-01-22 — Decided
- 2024-06-25 — Argued
Sources
- CourtListener — retrieved 2026-08-08
Summary of public court records. Not legal advice.