when i was in court Trump v. Hawaii was passed down. I remember the disdain with which Justice Sotomayor referred to “President Donald Trump.” This comes from the heart. However, in Cargill v. Garland, Justice Sotomayor called out President Trump in a nice way. She wrote:
Shortly after the Las Vegas massacre, trump card With broad bipartisan support, the administration banned bump stocks for use as machine guns under the statute.
Now, there is no reason to mention the president’s name when referring to rulemaking. This is a regulation promulgated by the ATF and not signed by the President. But the point here is that even right-wing fascists like Trump think this rule is sensible. Furthermore, it is strange to think that a regulation has “bipartisan support.” Typically, when people from both parties agree on a policy, lawmakers pass a statute that the president can sign. But there are no legal amendments here. In fact, President Trump made it very clear that he did not want Congress to pass a regulation and directed the ATF to change the rules. The Presidential Palace is in action! (Judge Kagan might be proud.)
However, I saw what the president was doing maladministration. The ATF has long had an explanation that bump stocks are not machine guns. In the wake of the mass murder in Las Vegas, there have been calls to abandon this long-standing explanation. The president directed his agency to abandon this long-standing explanation. And wouldn’t you know it, ATF achieved the exact results the president wanted. I call it presidential reversal. In 2019, I advanced this position in amicus briefs filed on behalf of the Cato Institute in the Tenth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit.
Judge Thomas gestured towards this mismanagement:
- “Automatic transmission oil sudden reversal of course Responding to the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. In October 2017, a gunman opened fire on crowds attending an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500 others.
- “This tragedy caused huge political pressure Crash stocks nationwide.
- “While the first wave of bills was pending, ATF began to consider whether reinterpret The definition of “machine gun” in §5845(b) includes bump stocks.
- “ATF’s U-turn That drew criticism from some observers, including those who agreed the cushioning should be banned.
- “The final rule is also Denied Previous ATF guidance stated that bump stocks did not qualify as ‘machine guns’ under Section 5845(b).
- “Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how ATF could reasonably argue that it A consistent stance over the past ten years In a number of separate decisions, §5845(b) excludes semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump-fire stocks.
- “Oddly, this objection makes ATF’s Turning to the footnote, Instead, it indicates the classification of other devices.
Here are some of Justice Sotomayor’s footnotes:
Most people emphasize Taken before ATF Certain bump stock devices are not “machine guns”[s]” under the statute. See ante, at 3, 19. However, the ATF has repeatedly classified as machine guns other devices that modify semiautomatic rifles that allow the shooter to fire automatically with a single trigger.
All six of the court’s conservatives argued that the statute clearly did not support a bump stock ban. However, the en banc 5th Circuit could only muster eight votes for that position — one vote short. Realize that the en banc 5th Circuit is not as conservative as critics tell you. Other Fifth Circuit cases heard by the Supreme Court this year did not go before the full court: FDA v. AHM, Laxmi, Network selectionand CFPB. In any high-profile en banc case, three-quarters of the moderate Republican appointees could vote with the Supreme Court’s Democratic appointees. If these Republican-appointed judges end up in senior positions during the second Trump administration, I think the full court will look very different.
