Garland v. Cargill
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Garland v. Cargill and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Garland v. Cargill.
The Supreme Court reviewed the ATF's classification of bump stocks as machineguns under the National Firearms Act. The Court found that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not meet the statutory definition of a machinegun, as it does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. The ruling emphasized that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the rule.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Garland v. Cargill.
The Court held that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machineguns under § 5845(b).
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Garland v. Cargill. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Garland v. Cargill
The case centers on whether the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machineguns, which involves constitutional limits on agency authority.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a 'machinegun' under § 5845(b).
-
Why Nondelegation is relevant to Garland v. Cargill
The case involves the question of whether Congress delegated too much authority to the ATF in defining what constitutes a machinegun.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A majority agreed that § 5845(b) is ambiguous as to whether a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fits the statutory definition of a machinegun and resolved that ambiguity in Cargill's favor.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Garland v. Cargill
The Court exercised its power to review and invalidate the ATF's rule on bump stocks.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a 'machinegun' under § 5845(b).
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Garland v. Cargill that support the summary and concepts above.
ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a 'machinegun' under § 5845(b).
A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a 'machinegun' as defined by § 5845(b).
Firing multiple shots using a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock requires more than a single function of the trigger.