The Vanderstok Decision
On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bondi v. Vanderstok, No. 23-852, resolving a challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) 2022 regulatory expansion under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). While media coverage has predictably framed the decision as a sweeping endorsement or rejection of so-called “ghost gun” regulations, such portrayals ignore the fundamental structure of appellate litigation and the narrowness of what the Court actually decided. The Supreme Court did not take a position on whether homemade firearms should or should not be regulated more expansively—it answered a narrower legal question about whether the ATF’s rule was facially inconsistent with the statutory text of the GCA.
This is not merely a semantic distinction—it cuts to the heart of what litigation does, what it does not do, and why appellate advocacy requires discipline and precision. It also explains why AzCDL is exceptionally selective in its litigation partnerships. When you go before a court, especially the highest in the land, you are not asking for a generalized policy opinion. You are asking for an answer to a specific legal question. If you frame the question poorly, you may receive an answer you didn’t want—or worse, a precedent that harms your cause for decades.
What the Court Was Actually Asked to Decide
At issue was the ATF’s 2022 rule interpreting the term “firearm” under the GCA to include (1) certain weapon parts kits and (2) incomplete frames and receivers that can be “readily converted” into operable firearms. The rule was a response to a surge in unserialized, privately assembled firearms—often called “ghost guns”—used in crimes, with numbers increasing from 1,600 in 2017 to over 19,000 by 2021.
Challengers, including private parties and Second Amendment organizations, filed a facial challenge to the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. They argued that the ATF’s rule exceeded its statutory authority under the GCA. The Fifth Circuit largely agreed, holding that the term “firearm” could not include incomplete parts kits or unfinished frames, regardless of how easily they could be completed.
The Supreme Court reversed. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that the ATF’s rule was not facially invalid. The Court reasoned that some weapon parts kits and incomplete frames or receivers do fall within the statutory definition of a “firearm” because they are “designed to or may readily be converted” to expel a projectile or function as a frame/receiver. The Court emphasized that artifact nouns—such as “weapon,” “frame,” or “receiver”—can include items that are not yet finished but are clearly intended to function as such.
This is a key point: the Court did not bless the ATF’s rule in its entirety, nor did it reject every critique of its scope or application. The case was a facial challenge, meaning the plaintiffs had to show that the rule was invalid in all or nearly all applications. Because some parts kits and frames clearly fall within the statutory definitions, the facial challenge necessarily failed.
The Limits of the Judicial Function
The Supreme Court’s opinion is a study in judicial restraint. The Court did not expand the regulatory state. It did not wade into legislative policy. It did not even say that the ATF’s rule is wise or unwise. It simply said that the specific regulatory provisions being challenged are not categorically beyond the scope of the GCA.
This underscores a foundational truth in litigation: Courts do not answer the questions you wish they would. They answer the questions you ask. The Vanderstok plaintiffs asked the Court to invalidate the rule on its face. The Court, sticking to that narrow frame, answered that question and no more.
Justice Barrett, during oral arguments, put this plainly: even if certain applications of the rule might stretch statutory bounds, that doesn’t render the rule facially invalid. Justice Sotomayor echoed the point: speculative or hypothetical abuses of a rule cannot sustain a facial challenge unless the regulation is invalid in virtually every application.
This is why appeals strategy matters. Framing, posture, timing—all of these impact how a court engages with a legal dispute. A poorly framed case can result in unfavorable precedent. A strategically crafted, narrowly focused challenge can chip away at overreach without jeopardizing broader constitutional protections.
Why AzCDL Is Deliberate About Litigation
Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL) exists to protect and advance the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That mission requires vigilance not only in legislative halls and the ballot box but also in the courtroom. But judicial engagement is not activism by another name. It is a careful, disciplined craft. When AzCDL considers litigation, the first question we ask is: what is the legal theory, and what is the precise question being presented?
We do not partner with litigation efforts just because the outcome might feel politically aligned. If the question presented to a court is vague, over-broad, or speculative, we will not risk establishing precedent that could harm gun owners in the future. Our goal is not headlines. It is permanent, structural protection of rights.
Vanderstok reinforces that judicial outcomes often hinge on procedural nuance, not sweeping ideological battles. The Court did not say that every parts kit is a “firearm.” Nor did it say that all ATF regulation is valid. It said that when a parts kit includes everything necessary to construct a firearm in minutes using common tools, then it may reasonably fall under the GCA’s definition. That is not activism; that is textualism.
Practical Takeaways
Litigation outcomes depend on question framing. If you want a broad result, you must choose your theory and posture with surgical care. Facial challenges require a higher burden than as-applied challenges.
Appellate courts do not re-legislate. They do not replace agency judgment or rewrite statutory schemes. They interpret and apply. And if the statute’s plain meaning supports some applications of a rule, a facial challenge will fail.
Judicial restraint is not abandonment. The Vanderstok Court did not side with regulators or deregulators. It stayed within its proper lane.
Organizations must be selective with litigation. AzCDL does not engage in lawsuits based on emotion, public outrage, or social media pressure. We assess legal theory, jurisdictional posture, precedential risk, and long-term strategy.
Advocates should understand the structure of litigation. Public policy is advanced not just by passing bills or filing lawsuits but by understanding how legal arguments work in practice. What you ask matters as much as what you want.
The Vanderstok opinion is not a loss or win for either “side” of the gun debate. It is a reminder of the mechanics of constitutional governance. The Court did not answer whether it is good policy to regulate incomplete gun parts. It answered whether the specific ATF rule, as written, is facially inconsistent with the statute. It found that it is not.
For AzCDL, the message is clear: litigation is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Every case we support will be tightly framed, rigorously analyzed, and designed to secure long-term protections for Arizona gun owners. The courts are not a stage for grandstanding. They are a forum for answering carefully posed legal questions. And if you don’t ask the right question, you won’t like the answer.
You can support AzCDL efforts through your membership and donations.
For legal citations and reference materials, see:
Bondi v. Vanderstok, 604 U.S. ___ (2025) (slip op.)
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) (definition of “firearm”)
5 U.S.C. § 706 (APA standard for review of agency action)
VanDerStok v. Garland, 86 F.4th 179 (5th Cir. 2023)
Oral Argument Transcript, Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852 (Oct. 8, 2024)
Michael Infanzon, EPIC Policy Group
AzCDL Chief Lobbyist