315 F. Supp. 3d 1202
W.D. Wash.2018Background
- In June 2018 the U.S. government reached a settlement allowing Defense Distributed to publish downloadable CAD files for 3-D printed firearms, including a temporary modification of the United States Munitions List (USML) and a letter approving public release.
- Defense Distributed previously posted CAD files in 2012; the State Department treated the files as export-controlled technical data under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and ITAR, prompting litigation and administrative review.
- The Western District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit previously upheld the government’s interest in restricting export of such technical data to protect national security (Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 838 F.3d 451).
- Eight states and the District of Columbia sued on July 30, 2018, challenging the temporary modification as procedurally invalid under the AECA and seeking injunctive relief to preserve the pre-modification status quo.
- The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their APA claim because the modification removing items from the USML implicated statutory notice and concurrence requirements that the government did not show were followed.
- The court found plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm from immediate publication (increased availability of undetectable/untraceable firearms), and that the balance of equities and public interest favored enjoining the modification pending a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural validity of USML temporary modification under AECA | Modification removed items from USML without required notice to Congress and DoD concurrence, so it is invalid | Settlement reflects a completed multi-year review and removal was lawful; no further delay required | Court: Likely success on APA claim; procedures (notice/concurrence) appear not followed, enjoin modification |
| Irreparable harm from publication of CAD files | Immediate posting will enable proliferation of undetectable, untraceable weapons harming public safety | Defense Distributed’s asserted right to publish and lift long-standing regulatory restrictions | Court: Plaintiffs shown likely irreparable injury; injunction necessary to preserve status quo |
| Balance of equities and public interest | States’ safety interests and regulatory stability outweigh delay in release | Government changed position; Defense Distributed suffers delay after years of restrictions | Court: Balance tips sharply for plaintiffs; public interest favors injunction |
| Standing of states and D.C. | Internet distribution has no effective domestic/international separation; states face concrete safety risks | Implied: challenge is not a direct injury to states? (not emphasized) | Court: Finds plaintiffs have standing based on reasonable fear of proliferation and public-safety harms |
Key Cases Cited
- Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2018) (sets Winter test for preliminary injunctive relief)
- Feldman v. Ariz. Sec. of State's Office, 843 F.3d 366 (9th Cir. 2016) (serious questions plus balancing test for injunctions)
- Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) (describes flexibility in preliminary injunction standards)
- Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State, 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016) (recognized national-security interest in controlling export of weapons-related technical data)