Aposhian v. Whitaker

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

W. CLARK APOSHIAN, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v. Case No. 2:19-cv-00037-JNP-CMR MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, et al., District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Defendants.

On September 29, 2023, this court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 61, granted Defendants’ Cross-Motion, ECF No. 64, and entered judgment accordingly. See ECF Nos. 71, 72. In so doing, the court deferred to the interpretation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) of the National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. § 5845, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 922. The court determined that a regulation, Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) (“Final Rule”), was a reasonable interpretation of the statutory definition of “machinegun” and therefore a lawful exercise of the ATF’s authority. To justify this deference, the court relied on Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and Aposhian v. Barr, 958 F.3d 969 (10th Cir. 2020). Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court decided Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024). There, the Court determined that the ATF “exceeded its statutory authority by issuing” the Final Rule. Id. at 415. In another opinion issued not long after, the Court overruled Chevron and declared that “courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2273 (2024). In light of the Court’s decision in Cargill, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the September 29, 2023 judgment of this court and remanded the matter so that this court could “conduct any and all further proceedings it deems

necessary and appropriate[.]” ECF No. 80. Because the Final Rule was an invalid exercise of ATF’s regulatory authority, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 61, is GRANTED. Defendants’ Cross-Motion, ECF No. 64, is DENIED. The court shall enter judgment concurrently with the issuance of this memorandum decision and order. DATED August 13, 2024. BY THE COURT

________________________________

Jill N. Parrish United States District Court Judge