Garland v. VanDerStok explained

VanDerStok v. Garland
Court:United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Date Decided:June 30, 2023
Full Name:Jennifer VanDerStok et. al. v. Merrick Garland et. al.
Citations:4:22-cv-00691-O (N.D. Tex.)
Judges:Reed O'Connor
Subsequent Actions:Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs

VanDerStok v. Garland is a federal court case brought by several plaintiffs from the firearms parts industry challenging the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act 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]

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[4] before the Supreme Court issued the stay again.[5]

On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it would take up the full case.[6]

History

The case was brought in August 2022, by Jennifer VanDerStok and Tactical Machining, LLC, and attorneys with Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.[2] Several intervenor plaintiffs joined the suit as it progressed, including Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Polymer80, and Defense Distributed.

Making several distinct Second Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims, the plaintiffs argued ATF illegally expanded the statutory definition of the terms "firearm" and "receiver", and asked for preliminary injunctive relief.[7] Judge O'Connor granted partial injunctive relief to many plaintiffs over the course of six months before ultimately deciding cross-motions for summary judgment against the ATF and 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 that order.[8] Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the district court's judgment and Fifth Circuit twice while the case was heard on appeal.[9] [10] [11]

References

Sources

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Second Amendment Foundation . Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction In VanDerStok Case . SAF.org . March 3, 2023 . July 2, 2023 .
  2. Web site: TTAG . Federal Judge Throws Out ATF's Frame or Receiver Rule That Redefined What Constitutes a Firearm . TTAG.com . Dan Zimmerman . July 1, 2023 . July 2, 2023 .
  3. News: Liptak . Adam . By 5-4 Vote, Supreme Court Revives Biden's Regulation of 'Ghost Guns' . The New York Times . August 8, 2023.
  4. Web site: 2023-10-03 . Fifth Circuit Narrows but Upholds Ruling Blocking Biden ‘Ghost Gun’ Ban . 2024-06-27 . The Reload . en-US.
  5. Web site: Hurley . Lawrence . 2023-10-16 . Supreme Court again allows enforcement of Biden ‘ghost guns’ regulation . 2024-06-27 . NBC News . en.
  6. Web site: ORDER LIST: 601 U.S. . Supreme Court of the United States . 2024-04-22 . PDF.
  7. Web site: TTAG . Federal Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Enforcement of ATF's Frame or Receiver Rule . TTAG.com . Dan Zimmerman . March 3, 2023 . July 2, 2023 .
  8. Web site: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Doubles Down on its Extreme, But Futile, Decision to Invalidate ATF’s Life-Saving Ghost Gun Rule, Everytown Responds . 2024-06-27 . Everytown . en-us.
  9. News: Hurley . Lawrence . Supreme Court allows Biden to regulate 'ghost guns' . NBC News . August 8, 2023.
  10. News: Liptak . Adam . 2023-10-16 . Supreme Court Again Lets Biden’s Limits on ‘Ghost Guns’ Stand . 2024-06-27 . The New York Times . en-US . 0362-4331.
  11. Web site: Millhiser . Ian . 2023-10-17 . The Supreme Court’s very brief, very revealing new decision about guns, explained . 2024-06-27 . Vox . en-US.