A late-week move from the Department of Justice quietly locked in a big procedural win for Texas and several allied states, keeping a Biden-era gun rule on ice for now in the states that sued. With DOJ pulling its own appeal, the preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the federal “engaged in the business” rule stays put while the fight heads back to the trial court.
DOJ Backs Off Appeal, Injunction Stays Put
According to Gun Owners of America, the Department of Justice asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss its challenge to the preliminary injunction that had stalled the rule. That procedural step sends the case back to the U.S. District Court and leaves the existing pause on enforcement in place for the plaintiff states and organizations. Plaintiffs are treating DOJ’s retreat from the appeal as a meaningful win for their coalition and for private gun owners while the lower court digs into the merits.
What The Contested ATF Rule Was Designed To Do
The ATF’s final rule, titled “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms,” hit the Federal Register on April 19, 2024, with an effective date scheduled for May 20, 2024. The agency said the regulation would spell out when repeated buying and selling of firearms or certain commercial behavior would trigger the need for a federal dealer license and background checks. The rule lays out presumptions about when someone is treated as a dealer, which ATF says was meant to clarify gray areas in existing law. ATF also noted that the rule implements parts of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and is aimed at tightening the traceability of guns used in crimes.
Court Order And Paxton’s Victory Lap
In June 2024, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the enforcement of the rule against the plaintiff states and organizations. The court concluded the challengers were likely to succeed on arguments that ATF exceeded its statutory authority and that the rule could improperly shift legal burdens onto gun owners. The memorandum opinion and order, which runs through that analysis in detail, is publicly available in the case record.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly celebrated the DOJ’s move to drop the appeal, calling it a victory for gun owners and saying that “The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American freedom.” For now, his office can claim that the administration’s attempt to revive the rule at the appellate level has been shut down.
Who Is Behind The Challenge
The lawsuit was filed May 1, 2024, by a multistate coalition led by Texas and joined by Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, along with several gun-rights groups and associations, including Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, and other state-based organizations. The injunction covers those named plaintiffs and prevents ATF from applying the rule to them while the courts work toward a final decision. The roster of parties is laid out in the case docket and in related regulatory materials, including the Federal Register entry accompanying the rule.
What Comes Next In Court
With the DOJ’s notice dismissing its own appeal, the legal action is now squarely back in front of the U.S. District Court. There, the plaintiff coalition can push for a final ruling that might permanently vacate the rule or narrow how it can be applied, while the federal government weighs its remaining procedural options. For the moment, the preliminary injunction is still the operative order for the plaintiff states as the trial judge considers potential remedies and additional briefing. The Dallas Express highlighted the latest filings and the state’s public statements about the development.
Why The Fight Over This Rule Matters
On the ground, the current outcome keeps life mostly the same for private gun buyers and sellers in Texas and the other plaintiff states. The ATF’s new presumptions cannot be used against them while the litigation continues, which is exactly what the challengers wanted for the short term.
Supporters of the rule told regulators it was designed to close familiar gun show and online loopholes and to make it easier to trace firearms, while the plaintiffs argue the presumptions would rope in ordinary private sellers and risk criminal penalties without clear authority from Congress. The Federal Register materials and the parties’ briefs lay out those dueling legal and policy arguments, which the district court will have to sort out in the next round.
