The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok has attracted attention for its implications on federal regulatory authority. The case centered on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) 2022 rule regarding the definition of “frame” or “receiver,” commonly referred to as the “ghost gun” rule. Significantly, both conservative and liberal justices found common ground, agreeing that the ATF’s rule did not conflict with the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, drew upon a landmark opinion from the previous term, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, to justify the weight given to the ATF’s statutory interpretation. This decision may serve as a critical precedent for future cases challenging agency authority. Moreover, the ruling casts a new light on the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of the Chevron doctrine, which had mandated judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes. Despite appearing to step away from the Chevron deference, the majority in VanDerStok suggested that contemporaneous interpretations by a coordinate branch of government could still offer insights into the statute’s intent.
The “ghost gun” rule seeks to regulate firearms that are assembled at home, lacking the traceable serial numbers of commercially manufactured firearms. The ATF’s regulatory scope extends to framing technology advances, spreading access to kits and 3D-printed firearm components, and addressing public safety risks from untraceable weapons.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted the explicit delegation of rulemaking authority by Congress to the Attorney General, as outlined in 18 USC Section 926(a). This emphasizes the legal framework that underpins the ATF’s authority, reflecting Congress’s intent for administrative agencies to apply and adapt existing laws to evolving technological contexts.
With Loper Bright invoked as a basis for the ruling, legal professionals should watch how this precedent might influence future regulatory cases. Not only does this decision strengthen the ghost gun regulation, but it also delineates the boundaries for agency rule-making and judicial review. The ruling may impact other federal entities like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Trade Commission, which frequently face similar challenges at the intersection of law, technology, and regulation. As such, the legal community will be keenly observing how lower courts interpret and apply this decision in forthcoming litigation.