What the Supreme Court’s Chevron Ruling Means for Gun Rights

Last week, the Supreme Court issued another historic decision in its flurry of recent rulings. In a 6-2 decision, the court struck down the 1984 Chevron doctrine. Legal experts expect the ruling to affect everything from healthcare rules to environmental regulations.

The decision in this case, Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, will also have a significant impact on the world of firearms. Here’s how the new ruling may affect gun rights.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Defense

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed forty years of legal precedence when it struck down the Chevron Defense. This doctrine established a test for administrative law that gave Federal agencies (like the ATF) much of their power.

Essentially, the Chevron Defense applies to situations where existing laws are ambiguously worded. In those situations, agencies were allowed to interpret laws themselves. The idea behind this was that these agencies were experts in their fields, so they should be able to determine the regulations governing those fields.

The Chevron ruling was one of the most-cited cases in administrative law. The Supreme Court itself used it in 70 cases, and other Federal courts used it in more than 17,000. Circuit courts (one step below Federal courts) used the Chevron ruling in 77% of administrative law cases.

But this new ruling put a stop to that. Now, the courts will have the power to determine if a law means what an agency says it means.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that this new ruling will remove “systemic bias in the government’s favor.”

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo Case Background

Ironically, this massive change in legal procedure came from a fairly innocuous source. In January, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case called Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo. This case had nothing to do with firearms.

Instead, it concerned a fishing company in New England that didn’t want to pay $710 per day for Federal monitors. These monitors would join fishing crews to keep tabs on their work. Lawyers for the fishing companies argued that current laws were ambiguous and didn’t allow the government to force companies to pay for these monitors themselves.

The fishing company was represented for free by the Cause for Action Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Both of these groups have been linked to billionaire Charles Koch.

How the Chevron Defense Affects Firearms

The Chevron Defense has already affected gun-related cases. The Trump-era ban on bump stocks, for example, depended on the test that the doctrine established. As we reported previously, the Supreme Court overturned the ATF’s ban on bump stocks in mid-June.

This change in administrative law will also affect any of the ATF’s Final Rules. The ATF has issued several of these in the last few years. Generally, these decrees clarify some kind of ambiguous legal definition – the exact kind of thing that the Chevron Defense would cover.

Now that the Chevron Defense is out the window, many of the ATF’s Final Rules could face legal challenges. Here are a few prominent candidates.

ATF Final Rule: “Engaged in the Business of Selling Firearms.”

Essentially, this new ruling can apply to any of the ATF’s Final Rules. In its most recent Final Rule, the ATF interpreted the legal definition of “engaged in the business of selling firearms.

This new interpretation would force anyone selling a gun to acquire a Federal Firearms License (FFL). This is a sweeping new rule that would essentially make it impossible for people to sell guns privately.

But now that the Chevron ruling has been struck down, the ATF doesn’t have the authority to do this. If the ATF arrests someone for violating the definition of their new Final Rule, the ATF would have to prove they’re right in court. The court wouldn’t just side with the ATF, the way it would using the Chevron Defense.

ATF Final Rule: “Frame or Receiver”

The ATF published another controversial Final Rule in August of 2022. This rule attempted to redefine what a “frame or receiver” was in a firearms context.

Authorities said that this rule was an attempt to stem the flow of unserialized firearms, or “ghost guns.” It targeted kits that allowed end-users to create their own guns without a serial number. The ATF alleges that this helps criminals get their hands on guns. It also makes it more difficult for authorities to track firearms.

ATF Final Rule: Pistol Braces

The ATF issued perhaps its most notorious Final Rule in January of 2023. This rule established a test to determine whether a firearm accessory was actually a “pistol brace” or a “stock” (and thus regulated by the National Firearms Act).

According to the National Firearms Act, if a gun has a stock with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, it’s a short-barreled rifle, or “SBR.” An SBR owner must register their weapon with the ATF and pay $200 per year. But if the gun never had a stock installed, it was considered a “pistol,” and unregulated.

The Big Picture

The instances we mentioned here are just a few of the ways that the new Chevron decision can impact the world of firearms. It’s important to note, too, that these rules won’t change instantly. Instead, someone will have to take all of these cases to court.

The gist of the ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo really boils down to one core idea. Agencies made up of unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be the ones making or interpreting laws. These people don’t have the power to do that – no one voted for them, after all.

Instead, the Raimondo ruling works to put power back in the hands of the people. Instead of those bureaucrats making laws, judges (appointed directly by elected officials like Governors) will be doing it.

We should expect to see some more gun-related court cases cropping up now that the Chevron Defense has been overturned. We’ll keep an eye out and report on them as they happen.