← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Garland v. Cargill

No. 22-976 SCOTUS · Decided SCOTUS
Argued: Feb 28, 2024 Decided: Jun 14, 2024


The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

Overview

After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the ATF classified bump stocks as machine guns under the 1986 National Firearms Act, banning a device allowing semi-automatic rifles to fire at near-automatic rates. Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks under protest and sued. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its authority: a bump stock doesn't make a rifle fire more than one round per trigger pull, so the law's definition of machine gun doesn't cover it. Congress could ban bump stocks, but the ATF couldn't do it by reinterpreting the statutory text.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority in classifying bump stocks as machine guns. A bump stock does not make a rifle fire more than one round per trigger pull, so it falls outside the National Firearms Act's definition. Congress could ban bump stocks legislatively, but the ATF cannot accomplish the same result through regulatory reinterpretation.

The Record · 1 original document
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledJun 2, 2022
CL Statusterminated
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
Statusterminated
Filed (CL)Jun 2, 2022
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-085ec936 Jul 28, 2026

Related Cases (1)

  • McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.
    The opinion cites McDonald v. Chicago for the proposition that legislative statements can provide evidence of how the public understood particular words or phrases at the time of enactment.
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support