No. 23-3230 ___________________________

Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.; State of West Virginia; State of North Dakota; State of Alabama; State of Alaska; State of Arkansas; State of Florida; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Kansas; State of Kentucky; State of Louisiana; State of Mississippi; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of New Hampshire; State of Oklahoma; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of Tennessee; State of Utah; State of Virginia; State of Wyoming; NST Global, LLC, doing business as SB Tactical; B&T USA, LLC; Richard Cicero

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Merrick B. Garland, in his Official Capacity, as Attorney General of the United States; The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Steven Dettelbach, in his Official Capacity, as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Defendants - Appellees

------------------------------

Members of Congress

Amicus on Behalf of Appellants ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota ____________ Submitted: March 14, 2024 Filed: August 9, 2024 ____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRASZ, Circuit Judge.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) promulgated a final agency rule1 interpreting the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The Final Rule reclassifies pistols equipped with stabilizing braces (braced weapons) as NFA-regulated “short- barreled rifles,” which subjects those braced weapons to NFA/GCA regulation. The plaintiffs—a stabilizing-brace manufacturer, a firearm manufacturer, a gun association, an individual owner of braced weapons, and twenty-five states (collectively, the Coalition)—sued to enjoin the Final Rule, arguing it exceeds the ATF’s statutory authority under the NFA and GCA and is arbitrary and capricious. The district court denied the Coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Coalition appeals that denial. We conclude the Coalition is likely to succeed on the merits of its arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, so we reverse and remand to the district court.

I. Background

A. The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act

Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801–5872, in response to rampant criminal gang violence. See Mock v. Garland, 75 F.4th 563, 570 & n.12 (5th Cir. 2023). The NFA’s purpose is to “regulate certain weapons

1 Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” (the Final Rule), 88 Fed. Reg. 6,478 (Jan. 31, 2023) (codified in 27 C.F.R. pts. 478 & 479). -2- likely to be used for criminal purposes,” such as easily-concealed weapons. United States v. Thompson/Ctr. Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 517 (1992) (plurality opinion). Congress authorized the Attorney General to enforce both the NFA and GCA. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7801(a)(2), 7805; 18 U.S.C. § 926. In turn, the Attorney General delegated that regulatory authority to the ATF. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.130; Final Rule at 6,481.

The NFA’s regulations apply only to “firearms.” See 26 U.S.C. § 5861. Accordingly, “‘[f]irearms’ is a term of art—one that is both highly under- and over- inclusive