A majority of the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic on Tuesday to the Biden administration’s restrictions on kits that allow people to make untraceable homemade guns.
The case centered on whether the federal agency responsible for regulating firearms had acted lawfully in enacting a rule to address a surge in “ghost guns,” weapons made from kits available for purchase online and heralded as easy enough to assemble in less than an hour.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices that the agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had responded to “an explosion in crimes” connected to ghost guns.
“The reason you want a ghost gun is specifically because it’s unserialized and can’t be traced,” Ms. Prelogar said.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Among the limits the agency imposed on the kits: requiring gun makers and sellers to be licensed to sell the kits, ensuring the products are marked with serial numbers so they can be traced and having would-be buyers pass a background check.
In recent years, the conservative wing of the court has proved skeptical of allowing federal administrative agencies too much leeway without specific authorization from Congress. Last term, it overturned a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, firearm attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun.
But at least five of the justices on Tuesday seemed to favor the limits imposed by the Biden administration, with at least two conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, showing skepticism toward the plaintiffs, gun manufacturers and owners who argued they should be able to purchase ghost gun kits.
When Peter A. Patterson, the lawyer for the gun groups, argued that gun enthusiasts might enjoy building firearms from the kits, Chief Justice Roberts, who had until then been largely silent, questioned whether the kits were really aimed at hobbyists. He drew an analogy to people who love tinkering with cars.
“Drilling a hole or two,” Chief Justice Roberts said, “doesn’t give the same sort of reward as working on your car on the weekends.”
Mr. Patterson responded by pointing to an effort by a reporter in California who ordered a gun kit to assemble. That reporter enlisted friends to help, Mr. Patterson said. (The news article Mr. Patterson appeared to refer to described the process of buying and building a ghost gun “shockingly easy.”)
The chief justice appeared skeptical of Mr. Patterson’s response.
“I don’t know the skills of a particular reporter,” Chief Justice Roberts replied, to laughter.
Got a news tip about the courts?
If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please send us a secure tip at nytimes.com/tips.
Although it centers on guns, the case before the court is not about the Second Amendment, but rather about the limits of the power of administrative agencies. At issue is whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives acted outside its bounds in issuing a regulation in 2022 to expand the definition of “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after lower courts blocked the 2022 regulation.
The case, Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852, was brought by gun owners and gun rights groups who argue that the Biden administration rule exceeded the bounds of the federal agency’s power under the legislation.
The case centered on whether the federal agency responsible for regulating firearms had acted lawfully in enacting a rule to address a surge in “ghost guns,” weapons made from kits available for purchase online and heralded as easy enough to assemble in less than an hour.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices that the agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had responded to “an explosion in crimes” connected to ghost guns.
“The reason you want a ghost gun is specifically because it’s unserialized and can’t be traced,” Ms. Prelogar said.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Among the limits the agency imposed on the kits: requiring gun makers and sellers to be licensed to sell the kits, ensuring the products are marked with serial numbers so they can be traced and having would-be buyers pass a background check.
In recent years, the conservative wing of the court has proved skeptical of allowing federal administrative agencies too much leeway without specific authorization from Congress. Last term, it overturned a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, firearm attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun.
But at least five of the justices on Tuesday seemed to favor the limits imposed by the Biden administration, with at least two conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, showing skepticism toward the plaintiffs, gun manufacturers and owners who argued they should be able to purchase ghost gun kits.
When Peter A. Patterson, the lawyer for the gun groups, argued that gun enthusiasts might enjoy building firearms from the kits, Chief Justice Roberts, who had until then been largely silent, questioned whether the kits were really aimed at hobbyists. He drew an analogy to people who love tinkering with cars.
“Drilling a hole or two,” Chief Justice Roberts said, “doesn’t give the same sort of reward as working on your car on the weekends.”
Mr. Patterson responded by pointing to an effort by a reporter in California who ordered a gun kit to assemble. That reporter enlisted friends to help, Mr. Patterson said. (The news article Mr. Patterson appeared to refer to described the process of buying and building a ghost gun “shockingly easy.”)
The chief justice appeared skeptical of Mr. Patterson’s response.
“I don’t know the skills of a particular reporter,” Chief Justice Roberts replied, to laughter.
Got a news tip about the courts?
If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please send us a secure tip at nytimes.com/tips.
Although it centers on guns, the case before the court is not about the Second Amendment, but rather about the limits of the power of administrative agencies. At issue is whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives acted outside its bounds in issuing a regulation in 2022 to expand the definition of “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after lower courts blocked the 2022 regulation.
The case, Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852, was brought by gun owners and gun rights groups who argue that the Biden administration rule exceeded the bounds of the federal agency’s power under the legislation.
