| 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]
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]