Garland v. VanDerStok: Statutory Interpretation in a Post-Chevron Era

Elizabeth Barry

---

Abstract

Are “ghost guns” subject to the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)? The Supreme Court will settle this dispute later this term as they deliberate on Garland v. VanDerStok. The case, which presents a query into statutory interpretation, ponders whether the ATF violated its statutory authority by implementing novel rules in 2022 regarding the definition of a firearm. This article provides a background on the emergence of ghost guns in firearm commerce today, as well as the nature of the statute under scrutiny. I will then examine lower court proceedings and the initial Supreme Court oral arguments before setting the scene for the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, as well as the likely impacts on the future of firearm litigation.

I. Introduction

Since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has been regulating firearm-related commerce in the United States. The Gun Control Act permits the ATF to invoke regulations that require background checks and the serialization of firearms, among other things. It was the passage of this act that significantly expanded the powers currently held by the ATF. The rationale behind the GCA was grounded in an exigency to hinder illegal firearm activity following a steady rise in violent crime rates and assassinations of prominent figures such as John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. The act went on to prohibit the practice of ordering firearms through the mail, which was ubiquitous at the time. It also served as the first iteration of legislation focused on constraining the ability of convicted felons and those with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. Moreover, the act sought to increase sentences for those engaging. . .

Open Full Article