Ghost guns case shows justices seriously engaging with statutory text

The Supreme Court’s ghost guns decision in Bondi v. Vanderstok centers on a fundamental question of American law: What happens when federal agencies reinterpret decades-old statutes to expand their own power? The justices considered whether, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, Congress authorized ATF to regulate gun parts kits—often called “ghost guns” because they lack serial numbers and are hard to trace. The Court split, but both the majority and dissent closely examined the statutory text without deferring to the agency.

The Gun Control Act defines “firearm” as any weapon that is designed to, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile, and their frames or receivers. ATF adopted a rule interpreting the Act as covering weapon parts kits that are “designed to or may be readily converted” to a firearm and unfinished frames or receivers. The Fifth Circuit ruled that weapons parts kits can never qualify as a weapon and therefore are not firearms, regardless of how easily converted they are, and that frames and receivers must be finished. The government appealed and the Supreme Court took up the case to decide the scope of the Act.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch upheld ATF’s regulation under the Gun Control Act of 1968—for now—but declined to give the agency a blank check. He reasoned that just as an unfinished manuscript might still be called a “novel,” Congress could have meant to include kits as “weapons,” even if not yet functional as a firearm. And there are at least some kits that clearly meet the definition. He specifically pointed to the “Buy Build Shoot” kit, which includes everything needed to build a semiautomatic pistol in 20 minutes with common tools. Still, he left open that some kits might fall outside that definition. Just as a few lines on a page are not a novel, the same might be said of some kits that take too much work to truly be called “readily convertible” to a firearm.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred. Justice Sotomayor wrote to dismiss any concerns that the decision left gun manufacturers and sellers with uncertainty. According to her, they know exactly what they’re doing, and anyway they can just ask the agency for guidance.

Justice Kavanaugh admitted that under the majority decision, people might not know if their kits are legal—but added that he found comfort in the fact that government promised not to prosecute unclear cases. Justice Jackson said she would’ve deferred to the agency so long as it’s acting within its delegated power, which begs the question…

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, forcefully dissented. He objected to treating the case as a facial challenge (meaning that the plaintiffs had to prove that the rule was inconsistent with the statute in every application), arguing this tilted the scales toward the government. Under that reading, every agency rule is permissible, because the agency can just incorporate something that is clearly covered by the statute. Instead, he said, the Court should’ve asked whether ATF’s rule was consistent with the Act. He also criticized the majority’s colloquial reading of the statute, warning against letting agencies stretch laws to cover things Congress never contemplated. Justice Thomas believed that, at best, the statute was ambiguous, and the Court should’ve applied a rule of lenity which weighs in favor of liberty rather than criminalization.

The case is important for two reasons. As a practical matter, ghost guns are popular precisely because some manufacturers argue they’re not firearms under the Act, and therefore don’t require licenses, background checks, records, or serial numbers. ATF, unsurprisingly, disagreed—and issued its rule to close that gap.

As a legal matter, the deeper issue is whether agencies can reinterpret old laws to expand their power. For years, courts gave agencies a deferential boost. Today’s opinion signals that deference may be fading—even if the agency won this round.

Whether one sides with Justice Gorsuch or Justice Thomas, the key takeaway is that both opinions seriously engaged with the statutory text—without deferring to the agency. That’s a win for accountability and the separation of powers.