Now for another rabbit hole:
West Virginia v. EPA, SCOTUS 2022 (6-3)
Wikipedia does have a decent article on this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA
Decision was handed down about a week or so before (or after) the Bruen decision. Relevant to the ATF rule at hand is the court's rationale in its majority opinion that told the EPA to go suck eggs regarding the power plant emission rules it had published. The government (EPA) argued Chevron deference but the majority of the court didn't buy it as the EPA was going much to far in its rulemaking. The court invoked the Major Questions Doctrine, which holds that a vague or general delegation of authority from Congress is not enough for major rule-making. Rather, the agency must have clear statutory authorization to decide the issue. In other words, Chevron deference only goes so far and has a limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine#Major_questions_doctrine
In other words, EPA didn't have clear Congressional authorization for the rules it had made regarding energy plant emissions that affected plants in West Virginia. Should be clear how this now can be very readily applied to the new Pistol Brace rules. The Government will very predictably try to argue Chevron deference, but given the decision and opinion cited above, I'd bet dollars to donuts the Major Questions Doctrine will override it citing there's no clear authority in the NFA (as amended) or the GCA for the ATF's new Pistol Brace Rules as it redefines what constitutes a rifle, especially after a decade of stating and publishing opinions on multiple occasions to the contrary.
Even more poignant is the very recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision and opinion in Cargill v. Garland published on January 6th, 2023, barely two weeks ago.
https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf
It's 62 pages long, but one need only read the first four to get the summarized gist of it. The 5th Circuit, en banc, invoked the Major Questions Doctrine that ATF didn't have the statutory authority for the Bump Stock Rules. In addition, the Rule of Lenity regarding ambiguity created by the ATF after over a decade of repeatedly declaring they weren't machineguns would strike them down on its own. While the 5th Circuit decision and opinion only applies to the 5th Circuit, make some popcorn and watch the lawsuits begin in Texas along the same path with much the same arguments. Garland (DoJ) will probably file for a Writ of Cert to SCOTUS and roll the dice, but in light of Bruen, I doubt DoJ (and ATF) would prevail. At some point SCOTUS will undoubtedly have to weigh in as it's predictable some other circuit will decide in favor of DoJ and the ATF after they go court shopping for a District in a Circuit that would produce the outcome they want it to.
Edit:
I can guarantee the Bump Stock Rule will hit SCOTUS as there are conflicting Circuit Court jurisdictions with one or two others upholding the ATF Bump Stock Rule banning them. One of the parties in one of these Circuits will undoubtedly file for a Writ of Cert. How fast that occurs remains to be seen. SCOTUS typically weighs in to take a case when Appellate Circuits are in conflict so that you don't have laws -- especially Federal criminal laws -- being enforced in one jurisdiction but deemed unconstitutional in another. Keep in mind the Bump Stock Rule has been out for a few years. The wheels turn slowly.
West Virginia v. EPA, SCOTUS 2022 (6-3)
Wikipedia does have a decent article on this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA
Decision was handed down about a week or so before (or after) the Bruen decision. Relevant to the ATF rule at hand is the court's rationale in its majority opinion that told the EPA to go suck eggs regarding the power plant emission rules it had published. The government (EPA) argued Chevron deference but the majority of the court didn't buy it as the EPA was going much to far in its rulemaking. The court invoked the Major Questions Doctrine, which holds that a vague or general delegation of authority from Congress is not enough for major rule-making. Rather, the agency must have clear statutory authorization to decide the issue. In other words, Chevron deference only goes so far and has a limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine#Major_questions_doctrine
In other words, EPA didn't have clear Congressional authorization for the rules it had made regarding energy plant emissions that affected plants in West Virginia. Should be clear how this now can be very readily applied to the new Pistol Brace rules. The Government will very predictably try to argue Chevron deference, but given the decision and opinion cited above, I'd bet dollars to donuts the Major Questions Doctrine will override it citing there's no clear authority in the NFA (as amended) or the GCA for the ATF's new Pistol Brace Rules as it redefines what constitutes a rifle, especially after a decade of stating and publishing opinions on multiple occasions to the contrary.
Even more poignant is the very recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision and opinion in Cargill v. Garland published on January 6th, 2023, barely two weeks ago.
https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf
It's 62 pages long, but one need only read the first four to get the summarized gist of it. The 5th Circuit, en banc, invoked the Major Questions Doctrine that ATF didn't have the statutory authority for the Bump Stock Rules. In addition, the Rule of Lenity regarding ambiguity created by the ATF after over a decade of repeatedly declaring they weren't machineguns would strike them down on its own. While the 5th Circuit decision and opinion only applies to the 5th Circuit, make some popcorn and watch the lawsuits begin in Texas along the same path with much the same arguments. Garland (DoJ) will probably file for a Writ of Cert to SCOTUS and roll the dice, but in light of Bruen, I doubt DoJ (and ATF) would prevail. At some point SCOTUS will undoubtedly have to weigh in as it's predictable some other circuit will decide in favor of DoJ and the ATF after they go court shopping for a District in a Circuit that would produce the outcome they want it to.
Edit:
I can guarantee the Bump Stock Rule will hit SCOTUS as there are conflicting Circuit Court jurisdictions with one or two others upholding the ATF Bump Stock Rule banning them. One of the parties in one of these Circuits will undoubtedly file for a Writ of Cert. How fast that occurs remains to be seen. SCOTUS typically weighs in to take a case when Appellate Circuits are in conflict so that you don't have laws -- especially Federal criminal laws -- being enforced in one jurisdiction but deemed unconstitutional in another. Keep in mind the Bump Stock Rule has been out for a few years. The wheels turn slowly.
Last edited:
