Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Bondi v. VanDerStok
 | |
| Bondi v. VanDerStok | |
| Term: 2024 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: October 8, 2024 Decided: March 25, 2025. | |
| Outcome | |
| reversed and remanded | |
| Vote | |
| 7-2 | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Amy Coney Barrett • Sonia Sotomayor • Brett Kavanaugh • Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
| Concurring | |
| Sonia Sotomayor • Brett Kavanaugh • Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
| Dissenting | |
| Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito | |
- This article is about the court case previously known as Garland v. VanDerStok. It became Bondi v. VanDerStok following Pam Bondi's appointment as attorney general of the United States.
Bondi v. VanDerStok is a case challenging the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to issue a rule regulating firearm parts kits, which the agency refers to as ghost guns. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 26, 2025. It was argued on October 8, 2024, during the court's October 2024-2025 term.[1]
In a 7-2 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 to cover certain products that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver is not facially inconsistent with the policy. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[2]
2. Whether "a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver" that is "designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver," 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a "frame or receiver" regulated by the Act."[3]
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Why it matters: The case could clarify the extent of the ATF’s statutory authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The case also has the potential to nullify the agency’s regulations on firearm parts kits.
Background
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| • Judicial deference • Nondelegation • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
Case summary
The following are the parties to this case:[4]
- Petitioner: Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, et al.
- Legal counsel: Sarah M. Harris (acting United States Solicitor General)[5]
- Respondent: Jennifer VanDerStok, et al.
- Legal counsel: Charles Randall Flores (Flores Law PLLC), David H. Thompson (Cooper & Kirk, PLLC)
The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[6]
| “ |
ATF, created in 1972, is responsible for regulating firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The GCA requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to conduct background checks, record firearm transfers, and serialize firearms when selling or transferring them. The GCA’s regulation of firearms is based on the definition of “firearm,” which includes the “frame or receiver.” However, ATF’s 1978 definition of “frame or receiver” became outdated due to changes in modern firearm design, such as the AR-15 and Glock pistols. Furthermore, the rise of privately made firearms (PMFs) or “ghost guns” posed challenges to law enforcement because they were not regulated under the GCA and did not require serialization. In response, ATF issued a Final Rule in 2022, updating the definitions of “frame,” “receiver,” and “firearm” to better capture modern firearm designs and regulate PMFs. The Final Rule took effect on August 24, 2022. The respondents in this case challenged the Final Rule’s redefinition of “frame or receiver” and “firearm,” arguing that it exceeded ATF’s congressionally mandated authority. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and vacated the Final Rule in its entirety. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the two provisions exceeded ATF’s statutory authority.[7] |
” |
To learn more about this case, see the following:
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- March 26, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- October 8, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- April 22, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- February 7, 2024: U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- November 9, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas' ruling in part and vacated the ruling in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.[8]
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 8, 2024.
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[9]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[10]
Outcome
In a 7-2 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 to cover certain products that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver is not facially inconsistent with the policy. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[2]
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:[2]
| “ |
The plaintiffs close by asking us to invoke the rule of lenity or the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to resolve in their favor any ambiguities about §921(a)(3). Brief for Respondent VanDerStok 38; see also post, at 24 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). But neither lenity nor avoidance has any role to play where “text, context, and structure” decide the case. Van Buren v. United States, 593 U. S. 374, 393–394 (2021). And even if ambiguities at the outer boundaries of subsections (A) and (B) emerge in future disputes involving the application of those provisions to particular products, no room for doubt exists about the answer to the question the parties have posed to us. The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed. Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [7] |
” |
| —Justice Neil Gorsuch | ||
Concurring opinion
Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[2]
| “ |
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to address two points raised in the writings that follow. The first is a concern that ATF’s rule might leave regulated entities in doubt about when and how to comply with the Gun Control Act. See post, at 1 (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring). That worry is unfounded. [7] |
” |
| —Justice Sonia Sotomayor | ||
Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[2]
| “ |
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I add this concurrence to briefly address mens rea issues with respect to ATF’s 2022 rule. Under ATF’s rule, an individual or business acting in good faith might nonetheless have substantial difficulty determining when weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers qualify as firearms—and thereby become subject to the Gun Control Act’s licensing, recordkeeping, serialization, and background-check requirements. Some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers may qualify as firearms, and others may not. See ante, at 13, 21. The line is not entirely clear. Despite the vagueness of the line, the penalties for violations are significant and can include fines and imprisonment. See 18 U. S. C. §924. [7] |
” |
| —Justice Brett Kavanaugh | ||
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[2]
| “ |
To me, the nature of the claim at issue in this case makes its resolution quite straightforward. No one disputes that Congress delegated rulemaking authority to the Executive Branch through the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended. See 18 U. S. C. §926(a). Nor is it contested that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an Executive Branch agency, relied on that delegated authority to promulgate the challenged rule. Before us, respondents claim only that portions of the resulting rule exceed the agency’s statutory authority. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(C). Our judicial charge, then, is to evaluate the scope of the Gun Control Act’s delegation of authority to the agency, and to determine whether the agency’s actions transgressed those bounds. That limited exercise should be dispositive. Proper excess-of-authority review must focus on actual statutory boundaries, not on whether the agency’s discretionary choices overlap precisely with what we, as unelected judges, would have done if we were standing in the agency’s shoes. And where, as here, the statute’s boundaries do not foreclose the agency’s action, the excess-of-authority claim should meet its end. I concur because I read the Court’s opinion to be consistent with this view. [7] |
” |
| —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson | ||
Dissenting opinion
Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[2]
| “ |
The Government asked this Court just last Term to “‘rewrite’” statutory text so that it could regulate semi automatic weapons as machine guns. Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. 406, 428 (2024). We declined to do so. The Government now asks us to rewrite statutory text so that it can regulate weapon-parts kits. This time, the Court obliges. I would not. The statutory terms “frame” and “receiver” do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of “firearm.” That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute. I respectfully dissent.[7] |
” |
| —Justice Clarence Thomas | ||
Justice Alito
Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
In his dissent, Justice Alito wrote:[2]
| “ |
The Court decides this case on a ground that was not raised or decided below and that was not the focus of the briefing or argument in this Court. Specifically, the Court concludes (1) that respondents mounted a “facial” challenge to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule implementing provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, (2) that a party making such a challenge must meet the test that applies when a statute is challenged as facially unconstitutional (what I will call the Salerno test1), and (3) that respondents cannot satisfy that demanding test.2 If I were satisfied that the Salerno test should control here, I would join the opinion of the Court. The Court points to a gun kit that is all-but-assembled, ante, at 8–9, and a frame that is as close to completion as possible, ante, at 19–20. As applied to those extreme situations, the Court holds—and I agree—the rule does not deviate from the statute. But I am not certain that the Salerno test should govern. [7] |
” |
| —Justice Samuel Alito | ||
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
October term 2024-2025
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Bondi v. VanDerStok (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Bondi v. VanDerStok
Footnotes
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Garland v. VanDerStok," accessed April 25, 2024
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 U.S. Supreme Court, "Bondi v. VanDerStok," March 26, 2025
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-852 GARLAND V. VANDERSTOK QP REPORT," April 22, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-852," accessed August 7, 2024
- ↑ Note: At the time that the Court heard this case's argument, legal counsel was provided by then-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar. Prelogar stepped down from her position on January 20, 2025, following the swearing-in of President Donald Trump (R) to his second term. After taking office, Trump appointed Sarah M. Harris to serve as the acting U.S. Solicitor General until her successor is confirmed and sworn in.
- ↑ Oyez, "Garland v. VanDerStok," accessed August 7, 2024
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, VanDerStok v. Garland, decided November 9, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 8, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 8, 2024
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
