Garland v. Cargill
In brief
The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit and invalidated the ATF’s classification of bump stocks as machine guns under this statute.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 14, 2024 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns under federal law.
- Who it affects
- The ATF’s rule cannot treat bump stocks as machine guns under this law. This affects bump-stock owners and federal agencies enforcing firearms rules.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court determined that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.
The case turned on whether the federal statute’s definition of a machine gun covers a device that helps a semiautomatic rifle fire rapidly.
Question presented
Is a bump stock device a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)?
What the Court decided
Holding
ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). 57 F. 4th 447, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Alitowrote separately
From the opinions
“A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.”
What's next
The ATF and lower courts must apply the Court’s interpretation of the federal definition. Bump stocks cannot be classified as machine guns under the invalidated ATF rule.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Show 6 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Opinion added: Cargill
Opinion added: Opinion
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Garland v. Cargill?
- The Court ruled that the ATF lacked authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).
- Who is affected by the bump-stock decision?
- Bump-stock owners and the ATF are directly affected. The agency cannot enforce its rule treating bump stocks as machine guns under this statute.
- What happens next after Garland v. Cargill?
- Lower courts and the ATF must follow the Court’s interpretation. The Fifth Circuit’s judgment for Cargill remains in place.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.