356 F. Supp. 3d 109
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting prompted ATF to issue (Dec. 26, 2018) a final rule reinterpreting the NFA definition of “machinegun” to include bump-stock-type devices; rule would ban bump stocks under FOPA and take effect Mar. 26, 2019.
- Plaintiffs (Guedes, Firearms Policy Coalition, Codrea, et al.) filed separate suits seeking preliminary injunctions raising APA and other statutory challenges, a Takings Clause claim, and challenges to then-Acting AG Matthew Whitaker’s authority under the FVRA, the AG Act (28 U.S.C. § 508), and the Appointments Clause.
- ATF concluded statutory phrases were ambiguous ("single function of the trigger" and "automatically"), defined them ("single pull of the trigger"; "self-acting/self-regulating mechanism"), and explained why bump stocks fit those definitions.
- Plaintiffs argued ATF’s change of position was arbitrary/capricious, that rulemaking procedures under 18 U.S.C. § 926(b) were violated (no oral hearing; short tech problems at opening of comment period), and that Whitaker lacked authority to promulgate the rule.
- Court held preliminary injunctions should be denied: ATF’s interpretations are reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference; procedural objections fail or are harmless; Takings claim does not justify injunctive relief; Whitaker’s designation under FVRA was lawful and constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether ATF lawfully interpreted "machinegun" under NFA / APA | Guedes/Codrea: ATF unreasonably reinterpreted ambiguous terms; reversal arbitrary and motivated by policy | ATF: terms ambiguous; reasonably interpreted under Chevron; adequately explained change | Held: ATF’s interpretation reasonable; Chevron deference applies; change adequately explained; APA claim fails |
| 2. Whether ATF violated rulemaking procedures (comments/hearing/§926(b)) | Guedes: ATF denied oral hearing; technical glitches at start required 5‑day extension; agency should have disclosed prior opinions | ATF: written comment opportunity satisfied "hearing" requirement; glitches were harmless; prior internal opinions not critical factual material | Held: §926(b) satisfied via notice-and-comment; no prejudice from tech issues; denial of oral hearing not unlawful; procedural claims fail |
| 3. Takings Clause—whether injunction is proper relief | Codrea: Rule requires destruction/abandonment of property without advance compensation; injunction needed | Gov't: Takings Clause entitlement is compensation after taking (Tucker Act); equitable relief ordinarily not available | Held: Injunction unavailable; plaintiffs may seek compensation later; preliminary injunction denied |
| 4. Whitaker’s authority—statutory (FVRA vs AG Act) and constitutional (Appointments Clause) | Coalition: AG Act designates Deputy AG as first and exclusive successor; President lacked authority to appoint Whitaker; Appointments Clause bars non‑Senate‑confirmed non‑first‑assistant acting principal | Gov't: FVRA and AG Act coexist; FVRA gives President discretion to direct eligible persons; temporary acting service consistent with Appointments Clause and Eaton line of authority | Held: FVRA and AG Act coexist; President lawfully designated Whitaker under FVRA; temporary acting service does not violate Appointments Clause; constitutional challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency entitled to reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statute)
- United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331 (temporary acting service does not require Senate confirmation)
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (Eaton and temporariness relevant in Appointments Clause analysis)
- Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (inferior‑officer test and supervision factor)
- SW Gen. Servs. v. NLRB, 137 S. Ct. 929 (interpretive context for FVRA; limits on acting service duration)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (statutory definition discussion: "single pull of the trigger")
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard)
- United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652 ("automatically" construed re: self‑acting mechanism)