The Supreme Court is set to consider a challenge to the ATF’s unfinished frames and receivers rule, and there are some clues as to how they might rule.
On Monday, the Court agreed to take up Vanderstok v. Garland. The case centers on whether the ATF overstepped its authority by significantly expanding its interpretation of what constitutes a “firearm” under federal law. The outcome will determine the viability of selling unfinished parts, such as “80 percent” AR-15 lowers, without a federal gun dealing license. It will likely have a major impact on the homemade gun market that commonly uses those precursor parts.
The Court’s decision to grant cert is the result of a government appeal against the ruling of a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court sided with gun-rights plaintiffs and found the rule was likely “unlawful.”
Taking up a case that went in favor of the gun-rights litigants could be a sign that the Court wants to reverse that lower court decision. In fact, the Court’s tendency to take up cases where it wants to overturn the lower court is one of the main reasons to think it will go in favor of the NRA in the group’s First Amendment case. But that’s probably not what’s going on in this case.
Unlike challenges to state laws or state law enforcement, this case deals with the enforcement of federal law. The federal government requested the Court take it up. It requires the Court to settle an issue to avoid incongruity in how federal law is enforced nationwide.
If the Court didn’t take up this case, it would leave the ATF’s rule in place everywhere but the Fifth Circuit. SCOTUS prioritizes settling these sorts of questions, and it’s a reason to think that granting the case doesn’t say much about why it took it up beyond that.
What does say something about where the justices might come down is the record they’ve already established in this case.
The Supreme Court has already intervened here twice. Both times, it sided with the government. Both times, it blocked lower court injunctions against the ATF’s rule.
That might suggest that the justices will side with them on the merits, but that’s probably not the right read of what happened.
In fact, the earlier interventions actually suggest there are likely already four votes against the government. The first time the Court agreed to issue an administrative stay on the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it noted that four justices wouldn’t have issued that stay. That probably tells us a lot more about where those justices stand than the five who voted for the procedural move.
It is much more likely a justice would vote for the stay but side with plaintiffs on the merits than the other way around.
Conservative Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas voted against issuing stays on the lower court rulings. So, there’s pretty good reason to think they’ll rule against the ATF on the merits. Liberal Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have commonly taken a narrow view of individual gun rights and an expansive view of government power over firearms regulation. There’s little reason thus far to think Justice Brown Jackson is any different on that front.
That leaves Justices Roberts and Coney Barrett. They sided with the liberals to grant stays on the lower court rulings. But both have signed on to rulings expanding gun-rights protections and limiting executive agency power.
It’s possible, perhaps even likely, they agreed to grant the stays for procedural reasons and will side with plaintiffs on the merits of the case.
