Bondi v. Vanderstok
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Bondi v. Vanderstok and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Bondi v. Vanderstok.
The Supreme Court reviewed the ATF's rule interpreting the Gun Control Act to include weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers. The Court found that the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the Act, reversing the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Court determined that some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames meet the statutory definition of a firearm.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Bondi v. Vanderstok.
The Court held that the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Bondi v. Vanderstok. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Bondi v. Vanderstok
The case involves the interpretation of the Gun Control Act by the ATF and whether the agency's rule is consistent with the statute, which is a matter of administrative law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Bondi v. Vanderstok
The Court is reviewing and ultimately reversing the lower courts' decisions regarding the ATF's rule, which is an exercise of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)86 F. 4th 179, reversed and remanded.
-
Why Nondelegation is relevant to Bondi v. Vanderstok
The case touches on the limits of agency authority under the Gun Control Act, implicating the nondelegation doctrine.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The plaintiffs' arguments about the linguistic differences between subsections (A) and (B) and potential unintended consequences under the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unpersuasive.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Bondi v. Vanderstok that support the summary and concepts above.
The ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
Some weapon parts kits meet that description.
The statute plainly reaches some partially complete items.
