Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Bondi v. Vanderstok (ATF Ghost Guns)
In Bondi v. Vanderstok, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and upheld the ATF’s 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to cover certain “ghost gun” kits and unfinished firearm parts. The GCA requires licenses and background checks for firearm sales and defines “firearm” to include both weapons and their frames or receivers. In recent years, companies have sold weapon parts kits enabling individuals to easily assemble functional guns at home, leading to a surge in untraceable “ghost guns.”
Challengers brought a facial Administrative Procedure Act challenge, arguing the GCA does not authorize the ATF to regulate incomplete kits or parts. The Fifth Circuit agreed, holding the statute covers only fully functional weapons and finished frames or receivers.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch held that the statute’s text, structure, and context support the ATF’s rule. Kits like Polymer80’s, which can be assembled into operable weapons in 20 minutes with household tools, qualify as “weapons” under §921(a)(3)(A). Likewise, partially complete frames and receivers fall within the meaning of §921(a)(3)(B), as Congress contemplated regulation of unfinished items in other provisions. The facial challenge fails because at least some kits and components clearly fall within the statute’s reach. The Court also rejected arguments based on the rule of lenity and constitutional avoidance.
Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson each filed concurring opinions. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
