President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department not to appeal a federal ruling that blocked National Firearms Act registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns for the plaintiffs covered by the case, according to a report Thursday.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has decided against appealing a federal court ruling that prevents the government from enforcing key National Firearms Act registration requirements against the plaintiffs and covered members of gun-rights organizations involved in two consolidated lawsuits, according to CBS News.
The decision would allow an Aug. 5 ruling by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas to remain in place rather than asking a federal appeals court to overturn it.
Several people familiar with the matter told CBS that Trump personally instructed the Justice Department not to pursue the appeal. A Justice Department official separately said the department intends to notify Congress that it will not challenge Hendrix’s decision.
“The president himself decided against appealing the ruling,” CBS reported, citing sources with knowledge of the decision.
The Justice Department still faced an Oct. 5 deadline to appeal, but the reported presidential directive indicates the government does not intend to do so.
The case stems from Congress’ decision in 2025 to eliminate the $200 federal making and transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns while leaving much of the National Firearms Act’s registration system intact.
Those changes were included in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
For decades, the NFA had tied its regulatory system to Congress’ taxing authority. Individuals acquiring covered firearms were generally required to submit paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, undergo identification procedures and register the firearm or device.
After Congress reduced the applicable tax to zero, gun-rights organizations and other plaintiffs argued that the government could no longer constitutionally justify those registration requirements as measures supporting the collection of federal tax revenue.
Hendrix agreed with that argument in the consolidated litigation.
“Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power,” Hendrix wrote. “And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”
The ruling covers suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns involved in the challenges.
It does not eliminate every provision of the National Firearms Act or invalidate the federal firearms laws generally.
Machine guns and destructive devices remain subject to NFA regulation and were not covered by the injunction. Other federal laws barring prohibited persons, including certain convicted felons, from possessing firearms also remain in force.
The geographic and legal scope of Hendrix’s ruling is also significant.
The injunction does not automatically apply to every person in the United States. It applies to the plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits and includes current and future members or customers of the plaintiff gun-rights organizations covered by the judge’s order.
The consolidated litigation involved 15 states as well as gun-rights organizations, businesses and individuals.
Among the plaintiffs were Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Texas State Rifle Association, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation and Silencer Shop.
The Justice Department had already declined to ask Hendrix to suspend his ruling while it considered whether to appeal.
That decision allowed the injunction to take effect Aug. 13.
At the time, DOJ said it was “assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”
The department’s latest reported decision goes further by indicating that it will not seek appellate review at all.
CBS reported Thursday that some career and political Justice Department lawyers had recommended pursuing an appeal and argued that the federal government could defend the remaining provisions under other constitutional powers.
Justice Department attorneys had argued, among other things, that Congress possesses authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to regulate firearms moving through interstate commerce.
They also noted that the 2025 legislation left another NFA tax in place involving businesses engaged in manufacturing, importing or dealing in covered firearms.
Hendrix rejected the government’s arguments as a sufficient basis for enforcing the challenged provisions against the plaintiffs.
The ruling has already affected at least one federal criminal prosecution outside Texas.
CBS reported that federal prosecutors in Alabama dismissed one count against a defendant accused of receiving a silencer without a serial number after his attorneys argued that he had joined organizations covered by Hendrix’s injunction following issuance of the ruling.
The government disputed the argument that the Texas district court could prevent prosecutors elsewhere from enforcing federal criminal law but nevertheless dropped that particular charge. Other charges, including an allegation involving illegal machine-gun possession, remained because machine guns were outside the Texas injunction.
The ruling therefore presents the ATF with an implementation question as firearms dealers and covered organization members seek clarity about which federal registration provisions can still be enforced.
A Justice Department spokesperson told CBS that ATF “will issue guidance soon to implement the court’s order.”
Federal Firearms License holders have been awaiting that guidance since Hendrix issued his decision.
The White House has emphasized that the ruling does not remove existing federal restrictions on people who are otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.
“Anyone who would have been prohibited from buying a firearm under the old structure is still prohibited from buying a firearm under the structure that now exists after the federal district court’s decision,” a White House spokesperson told CBS. “All federal criminal statutes imposing additional charges or penalties for the unlawful possession of a firearm remain in place and will continue to be enforced by federal law enforcement.”
The administration’s reported decision not to appeal means Hendrix’s ruling will remain controlling for the parties covered by his injunction unless another legal development changes its effect.
Congress could also revise the National Firearms Act, including by restoring a tax or establishing another statutory basis for regulating the affected firearms.
For now, however, the combination of Congress’ elimination of the $200 tax, Hendrix’s August ruling and Trump’s reported decision not to pursue an appeal leaves the challenged registration requirements unenforceable against the plaintiffs, current and future members and customers covered by the Texas court’s order.
Original article
Comments