What VanDerStok Says about Agency Interpretations of Statutes

Yesterday, in Bondi v. VanDerStok, the Supreme Court upheld the federal regulation of so-called “ghost guns. Specifically, the Court upheld a regulation promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968 to cover weapon parts kits “designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile.”

The opinion for the Court by Justice Gorsuch concluded that the regulation was not facially inconsistent with the statute, while leaving aside whether the regulations lawfully reach particular weapons part kits or unfinished gun frames or receivers. (Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.)

One interesting portion of the opinion discussed the extent to which reviewing courts should give deference or respect to agency interpretations of the statutes which they administer. On this point, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

Without question, ATF’s new rule seeks to regulate a greater variety of unfinished frames and receivers than the agency has in the past. But it is equally true that, for decades, the agency has consistently interpreted subsection (B) to reach some unfinished frames and receivers, including ones no more finished than Polymer80’s product. See, e.g., Are “80%” or “Unfinished” Receivers Illegal?, ATF (Apr. 6, 2020), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-“80”-or-“unfinished”-receivers-illegal; App. 117–118 (2013 guidance); id., at 5, 8, 10 (1990–1994 classification letters); id., at 22 (deeming a frame with additional “material left on top” to be a “firearm”). And while “courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions,” the contemporary and consistent views of a coordinate branch of government can provide evidence of the law’s meaning. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369, 394 (2024).

Of note, in this instance the Court concluded that the rule at issue reflected “the agency’s consistent understanding” that the relevant statutory provisions reach at least some incomplete gun frames or receivers.

This reference to Loper Bright Enterprises underscores that the justices are concerned about the sort of dynamic that motivated the major questions decisions–the discovery of latent, previously undiscovered and unheralded sources of agency authority in long extant statutes–and not about disregarding agency interpretations altogether. It also suggests that the Trump Administration can expect resistance if it seeks to adopt new interpretations of old statutes, particularly where there is a long history of consistent agency understanding and application of the law in question.

The post What VanDerStok Says about Agency Interpretations of Statutes appeared first on Reason.com.