Despite the caseload for the next term running behind compared to this time last year, two new cases have made it to the docket for the 2024-2025 term. The Supreme Court justices have agreed to deliberate on the controversial issue of “ghost guns”. The challenge is against an ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) rule that regulates these firearms, which are essentially weapons without serial numbers that could be assembled by anyone using parts often bought through a kit. Garland v. VanDerStok was announced this past Monday along with a list of orders from the justices’ confidential conference last week.
The legal dispute around the “ghost guns” regulation hits close to home for the justices. In June of the previous year, a Fort Worth, Texas federal district judge had barred the ATF from enforcing this rule anywhere in the United States. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor sided with manufacturers and sellers of ghost gun kits and parts, ruling that the application of the regulation to ghost guns was conflicting with federal firearms laws. The case arrived at the Supreme Court when the Biden administration appealed to reinstate the rule temporarily after the 5th Circuit, which hears appeals from federal trial courts in Texas, denied postponing Judge O’Connor’s ruling.
By a narrow margin of 5-4, the justices in early August permitted the Biden administration’s temporary reinstatement of the rule while the challenge in lower courts continued. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh demonstrated opposition by indicating they would have disagreed with the government’s request and would have preferred to keep the rule on hold.
The case progressed with the 5th Circuit hearing oral arguments in early September and passing its judgement in early November. It upheld Judge O’Connor’s decision, deciding that the rule was in clear defiance of the statutory text and exceeded the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority under the banner of public policy.
Reacting to the 5th Circuit’s ruling, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar approached the Supreme Court in early February, warning the justices about the potential hazards of letting anyone buy a kit online and assemble a fully functional gun within minutes, sans a background check, records, or a serial number. She cautioned that if left unaddressed, this could lead to a swell of untraceable ghost guns infiltrating the nation’s communities, posing danger to the public and hindering law enforcement’s ability to solve violent crimes.
The justices, after deliberating the case at two consecutive conferences, agreed to tackle the legal confrontation. This case, predicted to be argued in October, will be one of two cases involving guns that the justices examined in the 2023-2024 term. The other cases comprised United States v. Rahimi, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits anyone subjected to a domestic-violence protection order from possessing a gun, and Garland v. Cargill, disputing a federal regulation that classifies a “bump stock” as a machine gun.
As revealed, the second case agreed upon by the justices this past Monday, Lackey v. Stinnie, will determine whether a plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for the purpose of receiving an award of attorney’s fees, when there isn’t a final ruling on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim – in this instance, because the Virginia legislature repealed the law that the plaintiffs were challenging.
The justices will reconvene for another confidential conference on Friday, with orders from the meeting expected on Monday, April 29, at 9:30 a.m.
The complete article was originally published at Howe on the Court.