Skip to content

As the Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Oral Argument in Garland v. Cargill, Everytown Law Urges the High Court to Reverse the Fifth Circuit’s Extreme Decision, Protect the ATF’s Life-Saving Rule Outlawing Bump Stocks


NEW YORK – Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill, a critical case that centers on a reckless decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to prohibit the production, sale, and possession of bump stocks, devices that are designed and intended to convert semi-automatic firearms into machine guns. How the Supreme Court decides in this case will determine if bump stocks will once again be legalized in a majority of states across the country.

“We saw the violence that bump stocks can enable when a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in 2017. It’s no coincidence that America’s deadliest mass shooting was committed using a bump stock – devices make an already lethal assault weapon even deadlier,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law. “The ATF was absolutely right to categorize bump stocks for what they are: machine guns. Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to correct the Fifth Circuit’s dangerous decision and ensure that these accessories of war stay off of our streets.” 

The ATF’s rule was issued under the Trump Administration and following the deadliest mass shooting in American history – the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas where a gunman, using firearms equipped with bump stocks, opened fire at a music festival, killing 60 people and wounding at least 411 people. 

In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ATF’s life-saving rule, contradicting two other federal appeals courts that previously rejected challenges to the ban. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is also at the center of a case currently before the Supreme Court: United States v. Rahimi, which centers on the Fifth Circuit’s extreme decision to strike down the long-standing law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns.