Supreme Court Backs Biden’s Rules on Ghost Guns

United States Supreme Court building under clear blue sky.

The Supreme Court has upheld Biden’s ghost gun regulation in a decisive 7-2 ruling, maintaining requirements for serial numbers and background checks on untraceable firearms, despite strong opposition from gun rights advocates.

Key Insights

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the Biden administration’s regulation of ghost guns, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the majority opinion.
The rule requires weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers to be treated as firearms, mandating serial numbers and background checks.
Ghost gun seizures by law enforcement increased from 1,700 in 2017 to 27,000 in 2023, but have stabilized or decreased since the federal rule was implemented.
The case focused on the ATF’s regulatory authority rather than Second Amendment rights, leaving the constitutional question unaddressed.
Conservative Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing the majority’s interpretation exceeds congressional authorization.

Supreme Court Delivers Broad Support for ATF Authority

In a surprising 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Biden administration’s regulation of “ghost guns,” untraceable firearms often purchased as do-it-yourself kits online. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The bipartisan majority concluded the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has the authority to regulate weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

The ruling in Garland v. VanDerStok (23-852) addresses a 2022 revision to the Gun Control Act aimed at regulating “buy build shoot” kits. Under the regulation, which has been in effect since August 2022, manufacturers and sellers must obtain licenses, mark products with serial numbers, conduct background checks, and maintain records. Justice Gorsuch had “no trouble rejecting” arguments against the regulation, finding the ATF’s interpretation of what constitutes a firearm under federal law permissible.

Rising Concerns Over Untraceable Weapons

Law enforcement agencies have increasingly expressed alarm over the proliferation of ghost guns, which lack serial numbers and are difficult to trace. According to federal data, ghost guns found at crime scenes increased dramatically from fewer than 1,700 in 2017 to 27,000 in 2023. These weapons have been used in serious crimes, including mass shootings and high-profile murders. The ATF recovered over 19,000 ghost guns in 2021 alone, highlighting their growing presence in criminal activities.

Since the federal rule was implemented, ghost gun recoveries have stabilized or decreased in major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Manufacturing of miscellaneous gun parts has reportedly dropped by 36% overall, suggesting the regulation may be having its intended effect in curbing the unchecked spread of these untraceable firearms. The administration has emphasized that it is not banning these kits outright but requiring them to comply with the same regulations as commercial firearms.

Conservative Dissent Focuses on Legislative Intent

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, arguing that the majority’s interpretation overstepped the bounds of the legislative text. Thomas contended that Congress could have explicitly authorized the ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one, but deliberately chose not to do so. The dissent criticized the majority’s analytical approach, warning of “unforeseeable consequences” from what it viewed as regulatory overreach.

Gun rights groups challenged the rule as unconstitutional, arguing that ghost gun kits are “non-firearm objects” and should not be subject to ATF regulation. The case did not directly address Second Amendment rights but focused on the ATF’s regulatory authority under existing law. This ruling stands in contrast to some recent Supreme Court decisions that have expanded gun rights, including striking down a federal ban on bump stocks and broadening the individual right to bear arms. The decision leaves open the possibility that a future administration could rescind the rule through standard administrative procedures.