Garland v. Cargill

Garland v. Cargill
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 28, 2024 Decided June 14, 2024
Full case name	Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill
Docket no.	22-976
Case history
Prior	Cargill v. Garland, 57 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023)(en banc). Cargill v. Garland, 20 F.4th 1004 (5th Cir. 2021). Cargill v. Barr, 502 F.Supp.3d 1163 (W.D. Tex. 2020).
Questions presented
Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot...by a single function of the trigger."
Holding
The ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b).
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Concurrence	Alito
Dissent	Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied
National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Administrative Procedure Act

Garland v. Cargill, (Docket No. 22-976), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding bump stocks. The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as "machine guns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), codified in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Background

Machineguns are regulated through a federal law in the United States known as the National Firearms Act of 1934. Since enactment, this law requires the payment of a $200 excise tax, accompanied with vetting by the ATF, before a person can legally make or transfer a machinegun, short-barreled rifle or shotgun, silencer, destructive device, or Any Other Weapon (AOW). Transport of such items across state lines or international borders also requires prior approval by ATF. Subsection (b) in section 1 of the Act, as codified under section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code, the provides this law’s definition for what is a machinegun:

"The term 'machinegun' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

— Sec. 1. of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (26 U.S.C. § 5845(b))

A bump stock is a firearms accessory designed to facilitate the process of bump firing. Bump firing is the practice of using the recoil of a semiautomatic firearm to increase its rate of fire. In the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting, a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd, killing 61 including himself and wounding over 500. While the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had previously declined to classify bump stocks as machineguns in previous administrations, in response to the shooting, the ATF published a new rule in December 2018 to repudiate its previous stance and "clarify" that bump stocks were machine guns as defined under the National Firearms Act.

Prior legal history

Ever since the 2018 ATF final rule, the legality of these attachments has been challenged at the state and federal level. In one case, the Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge to the final rule brought by firearm owners and firearm rights organizations, with Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch writing "Whether bump stocks can be fairly reclassified and effectively outlawed as machineguns under existing statutory definitions, I do not know and could not say without briefing and argument. Nor do I question that Congress might seek to enact new legislation directly regulating the use and possession of bump stocks." The Court also denied other cases that challenged the final rule.

The plaintiff in the case is Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, who in 2018 purchased two bump stocks a few months before the ATF published its new rule. On March 25, 2019, Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF under protest, and simultaneously he filed suit in the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas challenging the rule. Following a bench trial, district judge David Alan Ezra ruled in favor of the government, ruling that the act of pulling the trigger on a bump stock-modified gun "is automatic fire". A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in December 2021, with circuit judge Stephen A. Higginson, writing for the unanimous majority that "ATF’s interpretation of the statute is the best interpretation. The phrase ‘single function of the trigger,’ as used in the National Firearms Act, means ‘a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.'". Following additional briefing and argument, the en banc court reversed and remanded in January 2023 in a 13-3 decision. The majority, written by circuit judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, wrote that it was up to Congress to amend the law to classify bump stocks as machineguns, and that the ATF final rule did not provide "fair warning that possession of a non-mechanical bump stock is a crime." The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit also decided against the ATF's final rule in April 2023.

Supreme Court

On April 6, 2023, U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari in Cargill's case. The court granted the petition on November 3. Oral arguments were heard on February 28, 2024.

On June 14, 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Cargill, ruling that the ATF exceeded its authority in defining bump stocks as machine guns. The majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that under the National Firearms Act, bump stock attachments did not qualify as machine guns since, even if they did fire more than one round per trigger pull, they did not do so automatically, and thus could not be regulated by the ATF, and only through congressional legislation. Associate Justice Thomas was joined by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and by the Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Thomas's opinion identified that the National Firearms Act "defines 'function of the trigger' to include not only 'a single pull of the trigger' but also any 'analogous motions'[...]...ATF concedes that one such analogous motion that qualifies as a single function of the trigger is 'sliding the rifle forward' to bump the trigger," and such "every bump is a separate 'function of the trigger[...] semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks are therefore not machineguns." Thomas also identified that prior to the Las Vegas shooting, the ATF across multiple administrations had previously declined to declare bump stocks as machineguns, but "abruptly reversed course" in its wake. Thomas also explained that if the ATF took their definition of machinegun used in the bump stock rule, then this would have also classified semiautomatic rifles without bump stocks as machineguns since ‘bump’ firing can be achieved without the need for the bump stock. Finally, Thomas also stated that §5845(b) "specifies the precise action that must 'automatically' cause a weapon to fire 'more than one shot'—a 'single function of the trigger'"; as "a shooter must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle's front grip with his nontrigger hand" when using a bump stock, this qualified as an additional function and thus did not meet the requirements for the definition of a machinegun.

Concurrence

Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurrening opinion expressing the need to take the statutory meaning of the law into account. Alito wrote the following: "There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted [the National Firearms Act] would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it." Alito also stated the proper course of action to outlaw bump stocks would've been amending the National Firearms Act legislatively rather than coordinating the ATF to try to effectuate that result through administrative fiat.

Dissent

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, joined by Associate Justice Elena Kagan and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, arguing that semiautomic guns equipped with bump stocks can be considered as machine guns by the duck test, and that to achieve their decision, the majority "casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose".

Reactions

Reporting in news outlets such as Reason (magazine) and National Review praised the majority opinion for keeping its focus on the definition in question, while other outlets such as Slate (magazine) and MSNBC criticized the majority opinion as being 'tone deaf' (in light of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting which prompted the ATF ruling). Vox Media reported the outcome as being a "party-line vote" between Justices appointed to the Supreme Court during a Democratic Party presidency and those appointed during a Republican Party presidency.

President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have urged immediate Congressional action for amending the National Firearms Act to outlaw bump stocks, with Biden stating, "send me a bill and I will sign it immediately." Although it was under his administration that the ATF final rule on bump stocks first came into effect, former-President Donald Trump stated through a campaign spokesperson that "the [Supreme] Court has spoken and their decision should be respected".