Garland v. VanDerStok
| VanDerStok v. Garland | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Full case name | Jennifer VanDerStok et. al. v. Merrick Garland et. al. |
| Decided | June 30, 2023 |
| Citation(s) | 4:22-cv-00691-O (N.D. Tex.) |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action(s) | Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Reed O'Connor |
VanDerStok v. Garland is a federal court case brought by several plaintiffs from the firearms parts industry challenging the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act definitions of firearm, firearm frame and receiver.[1] On June 30, 2023, federal district court judge Reed O'Connor granted a motion for summary judgment against the ATF, vacating the receiver rule nationwide on the grounds that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority.[2]
On August 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a stay of Judge O'Connor's nationwide vacatur while the case is on appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.[3]
On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it would take up the full case.[4]
History[edit]
The case was brought in August 2022, by Jennifer VanDerStok and Tactical Machining, LLC, and attorneys with Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.[2] Several intervenor plaintiffs joined the suit as it progressed, including Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Polymer80, and Defense Distributed.
Making several distinct Second Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims, the plaintiffs argued ATF illegally expanded the statutory definition of the terms "firearm" and "receiver", and asked for preliminary injunctive relief.[5] Judge O'Connor granted partial injunctive relief to many plaintiffs over the course of six months before ultimately deciding cross-motions for summary judgment against the ATF and striking down the agency's final rule. The ATF has appealed O'Connor's orders to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as to the Supreme Court, who have issued a stay of the district court's judgment while the case is heard on appeal.[6]
References[edit]
- ^ "Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction In VanDerStok Case". SAF.org. Second Amendment Foundation. March 3, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
- ^ a b Dan Zimmerman (July 1, 2023). "Federal Judge Throws Out ATF's Frame or Receiver Rule That Redefined What Constitutes a Firearm". TTAG.com. TTAG. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (August 8, 2023). "By 5-4 Vote, Supreme Court Revives Biden's Regulation of 'Ghost Guns'". The New York Times.
- ^ "ORDER LIST: 601 U.S." (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. April 22, 2024.
- ^ Dan Zimmerman (March 3, 2023). "Federal Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Enforcement of ATF's Frame or Receiver Rule". TTAG.com. TTAG. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
- ^ Hurley, Lawrence (August 8, 2023). "Supreme Court allows Biden to regulate 'ghost guns'". NBC News.
Sources[edit]
- VanDerStok Opinion, "Jennifer VanDerStok et. al. v. Merrick Garland et. al. 1:15-cv-00372-RP (W.D. Tex.)" (PDF). June 30, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023.