Episode description

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Garland v Cargill.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a bump stock device a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U-S-C § 5845(b)?

The case was decided on June 14, 2024.

The Supreme Court held that ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under 26 U-S-C § 5845(b). Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.

First, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the physical movement of the trigger that activates the firing mechanism. With or without a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle requires the trigger to be released and reset between each shot. The bump stock merely accelerates the rate of fire by causing these distinct trigger functions to occur in rapid succession, but it does not change the fundamental operation of the firearm. Each shot still requires a separate trigger function.

Second, even if a bump stock-equipped rifle could fire multiple shots by a single trigger function, it would not do so “automatically” as required by the statute. Firing multiple shots with a bump stock requires ongoing manual input from the shooter, who must maintain the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip. This additional manual input goes beyond the “single function of the trigger” specified in the statute. In contrast, with a traditional machinegun, simply holding down the trigger causes continuous fire without additional manipulation. Because a bump stock requires this extra physical input, it does not meet the “automatically” requirement of the statutory definition.

Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion suggesting that Congress can amend § 5845(b) if it wants to treat semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks as the same as machineguns.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, arguing that the majority adopts a narrow understanding of “machinegun” that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.