Garland v. VanDerStok

On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok. This case focused on the government’s authority to regulate “ghost guns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. A ruling against the government would have increased the availability of untraceable, unlicensed firearms further exacerbating the gun violence crisis.

What You Need to Know

• Facts of this Case: In recent years, technological advances, including 3D printing, have made it easier for companies to manufacture and sell firearms parts kits, which buyers can assemble into working firearms within minutes using common hand tools. Unlike normal firearms, these “ghost guns” don’t have serial numbers and could previously be sold without licensing or background checks, making them attractive to people who cannot legally own weapons or plan to use them in crime. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a new rule clarifying that ghost guns are “firearms” within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and thus must comply with the same requirements as commercially sold guns. Sellers challenged the rule arguing that the parts kits do not meet the statutory definition of “firearms.”
• Relevant Precedent & Background: In November 2023, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority in interpreting the Gun Control Act, reasoning that although the Act applies to “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” as well as “frames or receivers” of those weapons, it does not apply to incomplete frames or receivers, or parts of weapons. Through its emergency docket, the Supreme Court allowed the ATF to continue enforcing the regulation while the litigation proceeded.  The case was heard during President Biden’s term with Attorney General Merrick Garland the named petitioner and then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued on behalf of the government.
• Question Presented to the Court: Whether weapons parts kits that are designed to or may be readily completed, assembled, restored or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive are “firearms” within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
• What did the Court decide: In a 7-2 decision, Justice Gorsuch upheld the Biden-era federal regulation, holding that weapons parts kits are firearms within the scope of the Gun Control Act and affirming the government’s authority to regulate them as such.  Gorsuch writing for the majority noted the “profound changes in how guns are made and sold” since the act was adopted and the proliferation of crimes involving ghost guns in recent years. Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson each wrote brief concurring opinions and Justices Thomas and Alito wrote separate dissents. Justice Thomas claimed the majority “blesses the Government’s overreach” by “rewrit[ing] statutory text” while Justice Alito objected to the test applied by the Court in reaching its result while offering his own. In response to the Court’s decision, one noted legal observer has argued that the decision “leaves relatively little room for the Trump Administration to replace it with a watered-down substitute.”
• Take Away:  The Court’s decision in VanDerStok empowers ATF to regulate and curb the availability of untraceable, unlicensed firearms that further exacerbate the gun violence crisis.  The Trump Administration could attempt to revoke the rule in the future but yesterday’s ruling is a legal victory for gun control advocates as regulation of ghost guns has been found to be consistent with the Gun Control Act of 1968.

ORAL ARGUMENT

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in October 2024 in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case challenging the government’s authority to regulate “ghost guns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. A ruling against the government, would make it easier to obtain and circulate unregistered firearms.

What You Need to Know

• Facts of this Case: In recent years, technological advances, including 3D printing, have made it easier for companies to manufacture and sell firearms parts kits, which buyers can assemble into working firearms within minutes using common hand tools. Unlike normal firearms, these “ghost guns” don’t have serial numbers and could previously be sold without licensing or background checks, making them attractive to people who cannot legally own weapons or plan to use them in crime. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a new rule clarifying that ghost guns are “firearms” within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and thus must comply with the same requirements as commercially sold guns. Sellers challenged the rule arguing that the parts kits do not meet the statutory definition of “firearms.”
• Relevant Precedent & Background: In November 2023, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority in interpreting the Gun Control Act, reasoning that although the Act applies to “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” as well as “frames or receivers” of those weapons, it does not apply to incomplete frames or receivers, or parts of weapons. Through its emergency docket, the Supreme Court allowed the ATF to continue enforcing the regulation while the litigation proceeded.
• Question Presented to the Court: Whether weapons parts kits that are designed to or may be readily completed, assembled, restored or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive are “firearms” within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
• Potential Impact? A ruling against the government would increase the availability of untraceable, unlicensed firearms further exacerbating the gun violence crisis.
• What happened at the oral argument: During oral arguments, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch expressed doubt that the plain meaning of a term could include its component parts, with Justice Gorsuch drawing a distinction between a pad and paper and a grocery list. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett appeared more receptive, with Barrett suggesting the better analogy would be a Hello Fresh kit for turkey chili. Meanwhile, Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor seemed inclined to defer to the government’s reasonable interpretation of the statue.