Bondi v. Vanderstok (ATF Ghost Guns)

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Content provided by Jake Leahy. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Jake Leahy or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

2M ago 7:00

MP3•Episode home

Send us a text

In Bondi v. Vanderstok, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and upheld the ATF’s 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to cover certain “ghost gun” kits and unfinished firearm parts. The GCA requires licenses and background checks for firearm sales and defines “firearm” to include both weapons and their frames or receivers. In recent years, companies have sold weapon parts kits enabling individuals to easily assemble functional guns at home, leading to a surge in untraceable “ghost guns.”

Challengers brought a facial Administrative Procedure Act challenge, arguing the GCA does not authorize the ATF to regulate incomplete kits or parts. The Fifth Circuit agreed, holding the statute covers only fully functional weapons and finished frames or receivers.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch held that the statute’s text, structure, and context support the ATF’s rule. Kits like Polymer80’s, which can be assembled into operable weapons in 20 minutes with household tools, qualify as “weapons” under §921(a)(3)(A). Likewise, partially complete frames and receivers fall within the meaning of §921(a)(3)(B), as Congress contemplated regulation of unfinished items in other provisions. The facial challenge fails because at least some kits and components clearly fall within the statute’s reach. The Court also rejected arguments based on the rule of lenity and constitutional avoidance.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson each filed concurring opinions. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.

479 episodes

#Government #RJ Dieken #Supreme Court #Legal #Supreme Court Opinion #Slip Opinion #Scotuscast #Court #Law #News #Politics #Podcasting Education #SCOTUS #Supreme Court Decision