12151791
GUNS AND COFFEE
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
The Supreme Court denied review of a case challenging the ATF’s ban on bump stocks Monday morning, leaving the rule that bans the continued possession of the items in place.
The case, known as Guedes v BATFE, hinged on whether or not the BATFE actually had the authority to retroactively ban bump stocks, which the agency had previously approved, or whether Congress needed to actually write a law banning the devices. As the Cato Institute noted last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the the agency was within its authority to enact the retroactive ban.
Instead of analyzing whether the administration was correct in determining that the term “machinegun” includes bump stocks, however, the court simply deferred to the administration’s interpretation. This was an example of the controversial doctrine of “Chevron deference,” in which courts defer to an administrative agency’s permissible interpretation of a statutory term if the term is ambiguous.
Because of Chevron deference, the law often means whatever the current administration decides it should mean. And while the Supreme Court has told lower courts not to apply the doctrine to criminal laws, there is a grey area for laws like this that have both criminal and civil sides. So, even after both the challengers of the law and the administration asked the court not to apply Chevron deference, the D.C. Circuit did it anyways.
According to Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog, Justice Neil Gorsuch addressed the Chevron deference argument in a statement.
If you’re a non-lawyer like me, you probably had to look up the phrase “interlocutory petition” to find out exactly what Gorsuch meant. Gorsuch was arguing that the matter could still be reviewed in future cases even if the court decided not to hear this case, and in fact there are other challenges to the BAFTE’s bump stock ban still in the lower courts.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering the case Aposhian v Barr, which raises similar questions and challenges to the BAFTE’s administrative action, and while the Supreme Court’s decision to pass on hearing a challenge to the bump stock ban probably doesn’t help the Aposhian case in the court of appeals, gun owners and those hoping to restore some limits to the rule-making authority of government agencies will get at least one more crack at SCOTUS once the 10th Circuit issues its decision.
Link to Article.
The case, known as Guedes v BATFE, hinged on whether or not the BATFE actually had the authority to retroactively ban bump stocks, which the agency had previously approved, or whether Congress needed to actually write a law banning the devices. As the Cato Institute noted last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the the agency was within its authority to enact the retroactive ban.
Instead of analyzing whether the administration was correct in determining that the term “machinegun” includes bump stocks, however, the court simply deferred to the administration’s interpretation. This was an example of the controversial doctrine of “Chevron deference,” in which courts defer to an administrative agency’s permissible interpretation of a statutory term if the term is ambiguous.
Because of Chevron deference, the law often means whatever the current administration decides it should mean. And while the Supreme Court has told lower courts not to apply the doctrine to criminal laws, there is a grey area for laws like this that have both criminal and civil sides. So, even after both the challengers of the law and the administration asked the court not to apply Chevron deference, the D.C. Circuit did it anyways.
According to Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog, Justice Neil Gorsuch addressed the Chevron deference argument in a statement.
If you’re a non-lawyer like me, you probably had to look up the phrase “interlocutory petition” to find out exactly what Gorsuch meant. Gorsuch was arguing that the matter could still be reviewed in future cases even if the court decided not to hear this case, and in fact there are other challenges to the BAFTE’s bump stock ban still in the lower courts.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering the case Aposhian v Barr, which raises similar questions and challenges to the BAFTE’s administrative action, and while the Supreme Court’s decision to pass on hearing a challenge to the bump stock ban probably doesn’t help the Aposhian case in the court of appeals, gun owners and those hoping to restore some limits to the rule-making authority of government agencies will get at least one more crack at SCOTUS once the 10th Circuit issues its decision.
Link to Article.
Last edited:
