Skip to main content

No. 17-342October Term 2017Decided Feb 20, 2018

Docket 17-342October Term 2017 (2017–2018)

Jeff Silvester, et al., Petitioners v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California

The Supreme Court left the Ninth Circuit's result in place and did not weigh in on whether California's 10-day waiting period is lawful.

Case status

Current stage
Decided
Latest event
Decision released Feb 20, 2018
Case Accepted
Arguments
Decision ReleasedFeb 20, 2018
What it's about

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Question presented

Whether the court of appeals properly rejected petitioners’ as-applied challenge to California’s statutory 10-day waiting period for taking delivery of a newly-purchased firearm.

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Decision released Feb 20, 2018

Area

Gun Rights

Briefing

What it's about

This case asked whether the Ninth Circuit properly rejected a challenge to California's 10-day waiting period before a buyer can take home a newly purchased firearm. On Feb. 20, 2018, the Supreme Court declined review and did not decide that legal question on the merits.

Vote

On Feb. 20, 2018, the Court declined review; the prompt does not provide a vote count or any opinion lineup.

Impact

That left California's waiting-period law in place for the people covered by the Ninth Circuit's ruling. For example, a California gun buyer still had to wait 10 days before taking delivery, even if the buyer argued the delay made no sense in that situation.

What's next

There is no further Supreme Court action in this docket. The practical effect is that the lower-court ruling remained in force unless changed in a different case or by lawmakers.

What was the core dispute in Jeff Silvester v. Becerra?

The petitioners challenged California's 10-day waiting period for taking delivery of a newly purchased firearm. They argued the Ninth Circuit wrongly rejected their as-applied challenge.

What were the real-world consequences of the Supreme Court's action?

Because the Court declined review, California's waiting-period rule stayed in effect. Buyers in California remained subject to the 10-day delay under the lower-court ruling.

What was the next procedural step after the Supreme Court acted?

There was no next Supreme Court step in this docket after review was denied. Any future change would have to come through another case or through legislation.

Decision

Decision record

What the Court decided

The Supreme Court left the Ninth Circuit's result in place and did not weigh in on whether California's 10-day waiting period is lawful.

Impact

That left California's waiting-period law in place for the people covered by the Ninth Circuit's ruling. For example, a California gun buyer still had to wait 10 days before taking delivery, even if the buyer argued the delay made no sense in that situation.

Not official Court text.

Opinion documents

Grounding

Grounding
Primary materials plus reporting.
Note
Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
Checked
Jun 1, 2026
Primary materials5
Context reporting4