Supreme Court Decides Bondi, Attorney General, et al. v. Vanderstok, et al.

On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Bondi, Attorney General, et al. v. Vanderstok, et al., No. 23-852, and held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) rule interpreting the Gun Control Act (the Act) to cover weapon-parts kits that are “designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile” and “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” frames or receivers is not facially inconsistent with the Act.

The Act regulates the sale of “firearms,” a term which is defined by the statute to include, among other things, “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” and “(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” In 2022, the ATF adopted a rule designed to combat the proliferation of “ghost guns” arising from the sale of weapon-parts kits. The rule interpreted the statute’s firearms definition under subsection (A) to include weapon-parts kits “that [are] designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” The rule also addressed subsection (B) of the statute’s firearm’s definition of “frame or receiver.” The rule stated that “frame or receiver” should be understood to encompass “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.”

Various gun manufacturers and other interested persons filed a facial challenge to ATF’s 2022 rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the Gun Control Act cannot be fairly read to reach weapon-parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and vacated the rule, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed. Subsection (A) of the Act authorizes ATF to regulate “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” Subsection (A) thus requires (1) a “weapon” (2) that “must be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, designed to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way.” Because at least some kits could satisfy both of those requirements, the ATF’s rule is not facially invalid, the Court concluded. The Court explained that the term “weapon” is an artifact noun — i.e., a word for a thing created by humans — and artifact nouns are characterized by their intended function. Accordingly, artifact nouns may refer to unfinished objects when their intended function is clear. Additionally, the Act itself states that a starter gun is a “weapon,” even though a starter gun ordinarily cannot fire anything but blanks without being converted to allow for live fire. Finally, the Court noted that if Congress had wanted to regulate only operable firearms, it would not have defined “weapon” to include the “capable of being . . . converted” language. The weapon kit thus could qualify as a “weapon.” 

Concerning whether the weapon kit was able to expel an explosive projectile or be converted to do so, the Court compared a weapon-parts kit to a starter gun, noting that starter guns’ barrels are deliberately blocked, yet the Act provides that it is a weapon. Therefore, because Congress concluded that a starter gun “can readily be converted to expel” explosive projectiles, so too must at least some weapon-parts kits. Because at least some weapon-parts kits satisfy both of subsection (A)’s prongs, the ATF’s rule concerning subsection (A) is not facially invalid.

Turning to subsection (B), the Court concluded that the Act permits ATF to regulate at least some “partially complete” frames or receivers and, therefore, its rule was not facially invalid. The Court again concluded that, like the word “weapon,” the words “frame” and “receiver” are artifact nouns that could describe incomplete objects. Moreover, the Court noted that for decades the ATF had consistently interpreted subsection (B) to reach some unfinished frames and receivers. Though not dispositive, the agency’s longstanding interpretation provided some evidence of the law’s meaning. Accordingly, the ATF’s rule was not facially inconsistent with the Act. 

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson each filed concurring opinions. Justices Thomas and Alito each filed dissenting opinions.