By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New — The resolution of the Viramontes v. Cook Count and the Grant v. Higgins will occupy the fall of the SCOTUS 2026-2027 term. However, early in the new term it is highly likely that SCOTUS will deal with the three cases held over from the last term. And the NJ Cheeseman case will most likely be sent to SCOTUS for certiorari. New York: 2nd District: Firing Pin, LLC v. James, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (filed August 13-14, 2026) Issue: New York’s 2026 ban on “convertible pistols,” which by its cruciform-trigger-bar definition covers most Glock and Glock-style semiautomatic handguns. The three major pro-gun litigators have joined forces; Finally, the Defense Distributed v. Blanche, the reincarnation of VandDerStok v, Garland, has set a huge kerfluffle among the gun-control groups who are fighting not only the firearms industry and the second amendment organizations, but have now found the U.S. Government no longer their supporter.
Week ending August 22
The week’s dominant story is executive-branch retreat from firearms enforcement: the Justice Department let a district court ruling gutting core National Firearms Act (NFA) registration and tax requirements take effect by declining to appeal, while ATF continued rolling out its “New Era of Reform” deregulatory agenda. At the Supreme Court, the consolidated AR-15 cases (Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins) remain the marquee vehicles awaiting fall argument, while the large-capacity-magazine cases (Duncan, Gator’s Custom Guns, NAGR v. Lamont) sit held over for the Sept. 28 long conference amid a deepening circuit split following the Third Circuit’s en banc ruling in Cheeseman v. Davenport. In the states, New York’s new “Glock ban” drew a fresh multi-plaintiff federal lawsuit, and California’s legislature entered its final week with several gun-control bills eligible for floor votes ahead of its August 31 adjournment.
SCOTUS
Although SCOTUS is on its summer recess, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.
Although there is still one more month of SCOTUS summer recess we must not forget there is:
Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (7th Cir.) / Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (2d Cir.)
Consolidated for one hour of argument on the single question of whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles in common use. Cert was granted June 30, 2026; no argument date has yet been set, with argument expected early in October Term 2026. Significance: this is the first case since Heller squarely testing whether commonly owned semiautomatic rifles are protected “arms,” and a ruling will directly determine the fate of assault-weapon bans in Illinois, Connecticut, California, New York, and Maryland.
Three more cases were held over from the 2025-2026 term:
Posture: held over at the June 30 clean-up conference; carries to the Sept. 28 long conference.
Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25-198 (9th Cir.)
Issue: California’s 10-round magazine limit. This week’s development: no new SCOTUS action, but the underlying circuit split sharpened after the Third Circuit’s July 17 en banc decision in Cheeseman v. Davenport struck down New Jersey’s magazine ban, directly conflicting with the Ninth Circuit ruling Duncan challenges. Significance: increases pressure on the Court to grant review this fall; a favorable ruling could strike magazine limits in over a dozen states.
Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, No. 25-153 (9th Cir.)
Issue: Washington’s ban on manufacturing and selling magazines over 10 rounds. Posture: held over alongside Duncan to the Sept. 28 conference. Significance: broader than possession bans, implicating commercial restrictions on standard-capacity magazines nationally if struck down.
NAGR v. Lamont, No. 25-421 (2d Cir.)
Issue: Connecticut’s combined rifle-and-magazine ban. Posture: held over rather than granted alongside its companions Viramontes/Grant. This week’s development: the underlying split deepened as the Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois’s equivalent law in Barnett v. Raoul (July 9) while the Third Circuit struck down New Jersey’s in Cheeseman (July 17). Significance: a later grant could pair the rifle and magazine questions in one case, though for now the rifle question proceeds separately through Viramontes/Grant.
Cheeseman v. Davenport (3rd Cir.)
New Jersey’s mandated stay in Cheeseman v. Davenport (granted by the Third Circuit on Aug. 4) means the state’s rifle-and-magazine ban remains enforceable while New Jersey prepares a Supreme Court petition due by Oct. 15 (with a possible 60-day extension). This procedural pause keeps the Third Circuit’s pro-gun-rights reasoning on the books as binding circuit law even though it is not currently in effect, adding a likely fourth vehicle to the magazine-case cluster ahead of the Sept. 28 long conference. Doctrinal note: creates a direct, acknowledged split with the Ninth Circuit (underlying Duncan) and conflicts with the Seventh Circuit’s Barnett v. Raoul on the combined rifle/magazine question, materially raising the odds the Supreme Court acts at the September 28 long conference.
District Court
New York: 2nd District
Firing Pin, LLC v. James, Case No. 1:26-cv-01718, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (filed August 13-14, 2026)
Issue: New York’s 2026 ban on “convertible pistols,” which by its cruciform-trigger-bar definition covers most Glock and Glock-style semiautomatic handguns. This week’s development: the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, a licensed dealer, and individual gun owners filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief before the law’s May 31, 2027 enforcement date. Reasoning argued by plaintiffs: under Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, states cannot ban firearms in “common use” for lawful purposes, and Glock-pattern pistols are among the most commonly owned handguns in America. Practical impact: the suit builds on parallel NRA challenges to Glock-style bans already pending in California and Maryland, and no injunction has yet been issued, so the New York law remains on its current implementation timeline.
Texas: 5th Circuit
NFA litigation: Case No: 4:22-cv-00691, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (ruling effective August 13-14, 2026)
Defense Distributed v. Blanche; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (opinion issued Aug. 19, Judge Reed O’Connor presiding).
This case has had a remarkably long and winding path through the federal courts, evolving from a facial constitutional challenge to a targeted as-applied victory for gun rights advocates over roughly four years.
Origins and District Court Phase
The litigation began in 2022 as VanDerStok v. Garland, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenging the ATF’s August 2022 Final Rule that redefined “frame or receiver” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to sweep in unfinished, partially complete, and “readily convertible” weapon parts kits — commonly known as ghost guns. The district court sided with the plaintiffs and vacated the Final Rule in its entirety on a facial challenge theory, a sweeping win that immediately drew a government appeal under the Biden Administration.
Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court Review
The Fifth Circuit largely affirmed the district court’s vacatur, prompting the government (under Attorney General Merrick Garland, later substituted with Attorney General Bondi) to petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted on April 22, 2024. The Court heard oral argument on Oct. 8, 2024, and on March 26, 2025 issued a 7-2 decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holding that the ATF’s rule was not facially inconsistent with the GCA — meaning the rule could survive because at least some weapon parts kits (like Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit) qualified as regulable firearms. Critically, the Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings on the plaintiffs’ remaining as-applied and other claims, rather than resolving the dispute entirely.
Remand and Return to District Court
Following remand, the case was restyled as Defense Distributed v. Blanche once Todd Blanche was confirmed as Attorney General and substituted as the named defendant in place of Pam Bondi. Back at the district court level, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation pressed narrower, as-applied challenges specific to their own products, rather than trying to relitigate the facial theory the Supreme Court had already rejected.
Current Status as of August 24, 2026
As of this week, the case is in an active post-judgment posture favorable to the plaintiffs. On August 17-18, the district court (Northern District of Texas) granted judgment in favor of Defense Distributed and SAF on the Article III standing question and on specific as-applied counts, effectively striking down enforcement of the frame-or-receiver rule as to the particular Defense Distributed products at issue. The court’s associational-standing analysis relied on the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard framework to hold SAF could sue on behalf of its member, Defense Distributed.
The practical significance right now is twofold:
- No en banc facial win, but a real as-applied win: Unlike the original 2022-era ruling, this outcome doesn’t vacate the ATF rule nationwide — it invalidates the rule’s application to specific Defense Distributed products, a narrower but still meaningful result.
- Government’s appeal window: Under the district court’s order, the government has a limited window (referenced as roughly seven days in related NFA correspondence to AG Blanche) to seek relief or notice an appeal to the Fifth Circuit before the judgment becomes final and unappealable at this stage. As of Aug. 24, no public indication yet confirms whether DOJ under Blanche will appeal or accept the ruling, especially given the administration’s broader posture of stepping back from aggressive ghost-gun enforcement.
Given the case’s history of yo-yoing between the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court, a Fifth Circuit appeal remains a realistic next step if the government contests the district court’s standing and as-applied rulings.
Filed by: Defense Distributed (the 3D-printed firearm company associated with Cody Wilson) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), against federal government defendants (named in the caption as “Blanche”, the current United States Attorney General).
Basic Reason for filing: The plaintiffs challenged the Biden administration’s “frame or receiver” rule, a regulatory expansion under the ATF that broadened the definition of regulated firearm “frames and receivers” to cover unfinished gun parts and kits — commonly referred to by critics as the “ghost gun” rule. Defense Distributed argued the rule improperly restricted its ability to sell certain products, causing it economic injury and exposing it to potential criminal liability, while SAF argued it could sue on behalf of its affected members.
Core issue decided: Before reaching the Second Amendment merits, Judge O’Connor addressed a threshold jurisdictional question — Article III standing. The government argued that Defense Distributed failed to show “certainly impending injury” except as to four specific products, and inconsistently tried to argue the company lacked standing altogether after effectively conceding standing on those four items in its own briefing (a move the court treated as a binding judicial admission).
Key Holdings
- Defense Distributed has standing: The court found the company demonstrated concrete injury-in-fact (lost sales, economic harm, and exposure to criminal penalties) traceable to the rule and redressable through declaratory or injunctive relief.
- SAF has associational standing: Because Defense Distributed is itself an SAF member with standing to sue in its own right, the court held SAF satisfied the three-part associational standing test from Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — members would have standing individually, the interests are germane to SAF’s purpose, and the claims don’t require individual member participation.
- Merits result: The court struck down the Biden-era frame-or-receiver rule, at least as applied to specific products sold by Defense Distributed.
Why It Matters
The decision is significant because it gives gun-rights groups a citable precedent for surviving standing challenges — a procedural gate that, if lost, prevents courts from ever addressing Second Amendment questions. Notably, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard affirmative-action ruling to support the associational-standing analysis, illustrating how doctrine from unrelated areas of law can be leveraged in Second Amendment litigation.
Leading gun-control groups framing the DOJ decision as dereliction of duty
Leading gun-control groups have responded to the DOJ’s decision not to challenge these Fifth Circuit-adjacent rulings with pointed criticism, framing it as a dereliction of public-safety duty and accusing AG Blanche of favoring the gun industry.
Everytown for Gun Safety
Everytown has been the most vocal critic across both the NFA ruling and the Defense Distributed decision. President John Feinblatt stated that “less than a week after Senate Republicans confirmed Todd Blanche as Attorney General, DOJ has failed to defend a 100-year-old public protection against some of our nation’s deadliest weapons — even as it actively defends this exact same law in other courtrooms”. Feinblatt went further, alleging that “under the leadership of AG Blanche, who has strong family ties to the gun industry, DOJ is more concerned with protecting gun companies than public safety,” and explicitly demanded that “AG Blanche appeal this dangerous ruling”.
Separately, Everytown Law’s Executive Director Eric Tirschwell called the Defense Distributed as-applied ruling “egregiously wrong,” arguing that “the Supreme Court has already made clear in VanDerStok that the Gun Control Act applies to the vast majority of ghost gun kits” and that “no outlier decision from an extreme lower court judge can change that” — while explicitly stating Everytown “expect[s] the Justice Department to promptly appeal”.
GIFFORDS Law Center
GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown characterized the DOJ’s non-appeal decision as “a failure to defend public safety,” noting that “Congress put these safeguards in place nearly 100 years ago”. Brown also connected the decision to broader legislative politics, stating “this is exactly the outcome the gun lobby wanted when they pushed for this provision in the Big Beautiful Bill,” and accused DOJ of “putting the gun industry’s profits ahead of the American people’s safety” by not seeking a stay.
Brady
Brady’s president Kris Brown offered some of the starkest language, declaring on the day the NFA registration lapse took effect that “today, our government is failing us,” and pointing out that “at midnight, uniquely lethal weapons and devices — including silencers, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns — were deregulated for the first time in nearly a century”.
Shared Framing Across Groups
All three organizations converged on a common narrative: that DOJ’s silence and inaction (rather than an affirmative legal defense) represents a “dangerous precedent” that undermines nearly a century of firearms regulation. They have jointly called this a pattern of the administration allowing gun-rights litigation wins to stand by default rather than mounting a vigorous appellate defense, contrasting it with DOJ’s continued defense of similar provisions in other pending cases.
