All of a sudden, age-based gun restrictions have become the dark horse candidate for the Supreme Court’s next Second Amendment case. Its route to the Court has a chance to alter the course of gun politics and policy over the next few years.

On Thursday, a unanimous three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a combination of federal statutes that ban adults aged 18 to 20 from purchasing handguns at licensed gun stores.

“In sum, 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(b)(1), (c)(1) and their attendant regulations are unconstitutional in light of our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Edith Jones wrote in Reese v. ATF.

The ruling marks the first time an appellate court has invalidated the federal handgun sales age limit since the Supreme Court set its new Second Amendment test in Bruen. Its aftermath raises numerous political and legal considerations for gun-rights advocates and the government officials they’ve come to support.

Trump’s Response

In the immediate term, the ruling sets up one of the first big tests of the newly sworn-in Trump Administration’s gun policy resolve. Since it invalidates a significant portion of federal law for a segment of the country, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) will be forced to consider whether to appeal the decision.

On one hand, electing not to appeal the decision would leave a significant pro-gun ruling in place. That would validate the desires of many gun-rights groups who hope the new administration will use its new authority to simply not defend existing gun laws they find objectionable. But this rare, though not unprecedented, approach would also limit the ruling’s reach to just three states while simultaneously creating an unequal enforcement regime for young adult gun owners in other parts of the country.

On the other hand, choosing to appeal the decision, either to the en banc Fifth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court, tracks with the DOJ’s traditional approach when a federal law is called into question. This route holds potential upsides for gun-rights advocates but also some possible pitfalls.

A direct appeal seems likely to be granted by the Supreme Court in short order, given its tendency to defer to the DOJ when a federal law has been questioned. That would be a boon for gun-rights advocates, since getting another Second Amendment case in front of the justices has been a frustrating endeavor for them thus far. However, any appeals process would likely stay or even vacate Thursday’s ruling, and there’s no guarantee that the case will ultimately be resolved in favor of expanded gun rights.

Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Justice, poses an interesting wrinkle in the calculus as well. She has not yet been confirmed but appears well on her way to clearing the Senate in the coming days. Bondi helped organize the legislative response to Florida’s Parkland shooting, which included a bill to raise the age for adults to purchase certain firearms. She also vigorously defended that law in court to such an extent that she drew public rebukes from the National Rifle Association.

Given her background, she may not want to triangulate the DOJ’s response to the ruling with the aim of expanding Second Amendment rights, particularly if Trump himself isn’t dictating as much (and his early tenure suggests that the issue is far from top of mind).

The Supreme Court

Independent of how the Trump Administration chooses to respond, the ruling will likely draw Supreme Court interest.

While an immediate DOJ appeal would be the most expedient course, the issue is probably destined for Supreme Court guidance regardless of whether or not the Trump Administration lets the ruling stand.

The same day the Reese decision was handed down, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a separate lawsuit challenging the same federal prohibition on handgun sales to young adults. Unlike the Reese panel, the Fourth Circuit strongly suggested it was prepared to uphold the law, which would create an open circuit split on the question that the Supreme Court would be forced to resolve at some point.

Furthermore, similar age-related gun restrictions have already been percolating on the Court’s radar. The government of Minnesota asked the justices last month to review an Eighth Circuit ruling striking down the state’s practice of restricting concealed carry permits to residents 21 and older. A Third Circuit ruling striking down Pennsylvania’s de facto carry ban for young adults during declared emergencies that the Supreme Court previously granted, vacated, and remanded was also redecided with the same outcome last month.

Therefore, even if Reese isn’t ultimately the vehicle, the sheer volume of similar decisions and the prospect of an open hole in federal law make it a near certainty that the Court will find a way to address the issue soon. That’s a win if gun rights for young adults is your top issue, but it does risk crowding out some of the gun-rights movement’s other priorities.

While the Supreme Court has increased its tempo for granting gun-related cases of late, it has never decided more than one Second Amendment case in a single term in its history. Already, gun-rights litigants have had trouble getting the Supreme Court to finally take up an “assault weapon” ban case, for instance. If The Court decides another Second Amendment issue, like the federal handgun age limit or felony gun ban, is more pressing or there is broader agreement among the justices on what the outcome should be, it may once again punt on the gun-rights movement’s top priority cases, like hardware bans.

In the end, the case has the strong potential to eventually wind up with a Supreme Court win in favor of expanding Second Amendment rights. But it might also put other issues that the gun-rights activists would prefer to see addressed first on the backburner.