As reported by Bloomberg, guns are back before the US Supreme Court, but not in the context you might anticipate. In a twist away from traditional Second Amendment discourse, this time the crux of the matter is a dispute over agency power, brought forward by a ban on so-called “bump stocks.”
For those unfamiliar with the term, “bump stocks” are devices designed to increase the fire rate of semi-automatic firearms, making them mimic the rapid-fire of machine guns. The controversy swells around a recent government ban that effectively classified these devices as machine guns, prohibitions which have been in place since the 1980s.
The bump stock ban, enacted by the Trump administration in the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where 58 people were killed and hundreds were injured, is now being reviewed by a highly conservative high court, potentially posing significant implications for administrative law down the line.
Central to the case is the question of whether federal agencies have the power to interpret ambiguous laws, a doctrine known as Chevron Deference, and act upon these interpretations. This doctrine has been a hot-button issue for conservative jurists who view it as a power overreach.
While the outcome of the case will have direct consequences for the legality of bump stocks nationwide, it holds even wider implications. If the Supreme Court chooses to undermine Chevron Deference, it could potentially force significant changes across federal agencies, impacting regulations that extend far beyond firearm discourse.
As such, as the talks in the Supreme Court unfold, we urge all legal professionals to keep an eagle’s eye on the proceedings. The final ruling could reverberate through the hallways of law firms and corporate legal departments alike, as the landscape of administrative legal authority may be poised to shift.