Garland v. VanDerStok

Last updated

Garland v. VanDerStok
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 8, 2024
Full case nameMerrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Jennifer VanDerStok, et al.
Docket no. 23-852
Case history
Prior
  • Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. VanDerStok v. Garland, 86 F.4th 179 (5th Cir. 2023).
  • Preliminary injunction granted. VanDerStok v. Garland, 625 F. Supp. 3d 570 (N.D. Tex. 2022).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Laws applied
Gun Control Act of 1968

Garland v. VanDerStok (Docket No. 23-852) is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act of 1986's definitions of firearm, firearm frame, and receiver. [1] On June 30, 2023, federal District Court Judge Reed O'Connor granted a motion for summary judgment against the ATF, vacating the receiver rule nationwide on the grounds that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority. [2]

Contents

On August 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a stay of Judge O'Connor's nationwide vacatur while the case was on appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. [3] On October 2, 2023, the Fifth Circuit upheld that order, leading the Supreme Court to reissue its stay pending its appeal. [4] [5] On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it would take up the full case, hearing oral arguments on October 8, 2024. [6] [7]

History

In August 2022, Jennifer VanDerStok, Tactical Machining, the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition sued to block enforcement of the Gun Control Act on homemade firearms (also known as "ghost guns") made from a weapon parts kit. [2] Between September 2022 and January 2023, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, JSD Supply, and Polymer80 filed motions to intervene based on their unique interests in the case. [8]

The plaintiffs argued that the ATF's 2021 regulations applying provisions of the Gun Control Act violated the Second Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act. [9] Over the course of six months, Judge O'Connor granted partial injunctive relief to many of the plaintiffs before ultimately deciding cross-motions for summary judgment against the ATF, striking down the agency's final rule. The ATF appealed O'Connor's orders to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. [10] [ better source needed ] After both the District Court ruling and Fifth Circuit appeal, the Supreme Court has issued stays pending appeal to delay a nationwide injunction on the ATF's regulations until it decides the case. [11] [12] [13]

Supreme Court

Oral arguments

During oral arguments held on October 8, 2024, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar highlighted that the Gun Control Act's serial numbering, record-keeping, and background check requirements must be uniformly applied to all firearm sales to support investigations of gun crimes and deny firearm possession to minors, felons, and domestic abusers. In her view, the ATF's regulation interpreting the Gun Control Act to cover easy-to-assemble weapon parts kits as firearms was consistent with prior regulations that similarly analyzed the assembly time, requisite skill, and availability of additional components in classifying frames and receivers. Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with Prelogar's position, noting that while ghost guns are a recent phenomenon, the Gun Control Act was enacted with the intent to regulate grenades and machine guns that were typically purchased as their component parts. [14]

Citing the Supreme Court's 1991 decision in INS v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights , Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted that this case's facial pre-enforcement challenge would require the plaintiffs to show that the ATF's regulation deviated from the Gun Control Act's statutory text, rather than simply identifying a product that would be improperly covered under the new regulation. Sotomayor further noted that since the Gun Control Act specifically stakes its authority over starting pistols designed to fire blank cartridges, weapon parts kits similarly qualify for regulation because of their capacity to be readily converted into a working firearm. [7]

Prelogar cited the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Abramski v. United States , which held that the Gun Control Act statutorily ambiguous provisions should be interpreted in ways that do not circumvent its purpose of regulating access to firearms. In his opposing argument, Peter A. Patterson rebutted that Congress' decision to not regulate the secondary market of resold firearms, despite its larger role in criminals acquiring weapons, makes that case's anti-circumvention principle an insufficient defense for this regulation on weapon parts kits. [14]

Patterson advocated for returning to the ATF's prior "critical machining test," which evaluates whether the purchaser must use tools to further modify the frame or receiver before it becomes usable in a firearm. However, most of the justices explicitly rejected this proposal on the basis that agencies are not required to adopt de minimis regulatory interpretations of statutes. [15] In response to questioning on the appeal of weapon parts sold one drilling hole away from assembling a firearm, Patterson claimed that requiring the purchaser to use tools catered to a hobbyist market, which Prelogar rejected because the marketing for these products has focused on their untraceability. [16]

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that in applying the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended Chevron deference to agency interpretations of statutes, courts should only judge whether the agency has acted within its statutory authority, not whether the regulation's scope matches the judge's statutory interpretation. [17]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Firearms Act</span> 1934 US law regulating firearms including machine guns

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 was enacted on June 26, 1934, and currently codified and amended as I.R.C. ch. 53. The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the federal firearms laws, with the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") as Title I.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit</span> Current United States federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is one of the 13 United States courts of appeals. It has appellate jurisdiction over the U.S. district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Receiver (firearms)</span> Firearm component that houses the operating parts of the weapon

In firearms terminology and at law, the firearm frame or receiver is the part of a firearm which integrates other components by providing housing for internal action components such as the hammer, bolt or breechblock, firing pin and extractor, and has threaded interfaces for externally attaching ("receiving") components such as the barrel, stock, trigger mechanism and iron/optical sights. Various firearm receivers often come with 1 or 2 sections, the upper receiver which houses the barrel/trunnion, bolt components etc and the lower receiver that holds the fire control group, pistol grip, selector, stock etc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing, the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in California</span>

Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reed O'Connor</span> American judge (born 1965)

Reed Charles O'Connor is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in the District of Columbia</span>

Gun laws in the District of Columbia regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in Washington, D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Illinois</span>

Gun laws in Illinois regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Maryland</span>

Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense Distributed</span> American non-profit developing digital firearm schematics

Defense Distributed is an online, open-source hardware and software organization that develops digital schematics of firearms in CAD files, or "wiki weapons", that may be downloaded from the Internet and used in 3D printing or CNC milling applications. Among the organization's goals is to develop and freely publish firearms-related design schematics that can be downloaded and reproduced by anyone with a 3D printer or milling machine, facilitating the popular production of homemade firearms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">3D printed firearm</span> Firearm created using 3D printing

A 3D printed firearm is a firearm that is partially or primarily produced with a 3D printer. While plastic printed firearms are associated with improvised firearms, or the politics of gun control, digitally-produced metal firearms are more associated with commercial manufacturing or experiments in traditional firearms design.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homemade firearm</span> Firearm made by a private individual

A homemade firearm, also called a ghost gun or privately made firearm, is a firearm made by a private individual, in contrast to one produced by a corporate or government entity. The term ghost gun is used mostly in the United States by gun control advocates, but it is being adopted by gun rights advocates and the firearm industry.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

<i>Miller v. Bonta</i> 2021 pending federal appellate court case regarding Californias assault weapon ban

Miller v. Bonta is a pending court case before Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California concerning California's assault weapon ban, the Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA). Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban in a ruling on June 5, 2021. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the ruling on June 21, 2021, which left the ban in place as appeals were litigated. The panel then vacated Judge Benitez’s ruling and remanded it back down after [] was decided. The case was known as Miller v. Becerra before Rob Bonta succeeded Xavier Becerra as Attorney General of California in April 2021.

Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the classification of bump stocks as "machine guns" under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2018. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns for purposes of the NFA, vacating the ATF rule and finding that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority.

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and whether it empowers the government to prohibit firearm possession by a person with a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence conviction or charge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Firearms Policy Coalition</span> US gun rights organization

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a gun rights organization in the United States, which aims to advance gun rights in the United States via legal action, in keeping with its stated goal to "restore the essential right to keep and bear arms in the United States." The FPC seeks to approach gun rights advocacy in a more targeted and effective way than the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), specifically by working with targeted legal teams to advance legislation in support of gun rights causes.

The Emily and the Caroline, 22 U.S. 381 (1824), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in admiralty law, indictments require less formality and technical precision than common law indictments. Additionally, the Supreme Court expressed an anti-circumvention principle for statutory interpretation, in which laws should be read in ways that do not undermine their purpose.

References

  1. ↑ "Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction In VanDerStok Case". SAF.org. Second Amendment Foundation. March 3, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
  2. 1 2 Dan Zimmerman (July 1, 2023). "Federal Judge Throws Out ATF's Frame or Receiver Rule That Redefined What Constitutes a Firearm". TTAG.com. TTAG. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (August 8, 2023). "By 5-4 Vote, Supreme Court Revives Biden's Regulation of 'Ghost Guns'". The New York Times.
  4. ↑ "Fifth Circuit Narrows but Upholds Ruling Blocking Biden 'Ghost Gun' Ban". The Reload. October 3, 2023. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  5. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (October 16, 2023). "Supreme Court again allows enforcement of Biden 'ghost guns' regulation". NBC News. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  6. ↑ "ORDER LIST: 601 U.S." (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. April 22, 2024.
  7. 1 2 Millhiser, Ian (October 1, 2024). "The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether to Let Criminals Get Guns Without a Background Check". Vox . Retrieved October 1, 2024.
  8. ↑ "VanDerStok v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Rule". Firearms Policy Coalition . Retrieved October 1, 2024.
  9. ↑ Dan Zimmerman (March 3, 2023). "Federal Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Enforcement of ATF's Frame or Receiver Rule". The Truth About Guns . Retrieved July 2, 2023.
  10. ↑ "Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Doubles Down on its Extreme, But Futile, Decision to Invalidate ATF's Life-Saving Ghost Gun Rule, Everytown Responds". Everytown. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  11. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (August 8, 2023). "Supreme Court Allows Biden to Regulate 'Ghost Guns'". NBC News.
  12. ↑ Liptak, Adam (October 16, 2023). "Supreme Court Again Lets Biden's Limits on 'Ghost Guns' Stand". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  13. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (October 17, 2023). "The Supreme Court's Very Brief, Very Revealing New Decision About Guns, Explained". Vox. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  14. 1 2 "Garland v. VanDerStok Oral Argument". C-SPAN . October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 10, 2024.
  15. ↑ Sullum, Jacob (October 8, 2024). "Most Justices Seem Inclined to Uphold the ATF's New Restrictions on Homemade Firearms". Reason . Retrieved October 10, 2024.
  16. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (October 8, 2024). "The Supreme Court Appears to Have Found a Gun Regulation It Actually Likes". Vox . Retrieved October 10, 2024.
  17. ↑ Smith, Zach; Fitzhenry, Jack (October 9, 2024). "Ghost Guns at SCOTUS: The ATF Once Again Seeks an Expansive View of Its Own Authority". The Daily Signal . Retrieved October 10, 2024.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.