President Trump has ordered the Justice Department not to appeal a sweeping federal court ruling that struck down key provisions of the National Firearms Act, a decision that loosens decades-old restrictions on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers.
The directive, which Trump communicated to Republican members of Congress in recent weeks, means the government will let an Oct. 5 appeal deadline pass without challenging a permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in the Northern District of Texas. The ruling found that most of the regulatory framework built around the 1934 firearms law is unconstitutional now that Congress has zeroed out the $200 transfer tax that once gave the statute its legal footing. CBS News reported that sources familiar with the matter confirmed Trump personally decided against an appeal and assured lawmakers he would ensure the DOJ did not contest the decision.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "will issue guidance soon to implement the court's order." The DOJ also intends to notify Congress that it will not appeal. Career and politically appointed lawyers across multiple DOJ offices disagree with the ruling and have warned internally that it is already undermining federal firearms prosecutions, but the president's decision overrides their objections.
Judge Hendrix, a Trump appointee, built his ruling on a straightforward constitutional argument. The National Firearms Act, first enacted in 1934 to regulate weapons associated with Prohibition-era organized crime, derived its authority from Congress's taxing power. Anyone who wanted to sell, possess, or manufacture a covered firearm had to submit a detailed application to the ATF, get fingerprinted, and register the weapon with an engraved serial number. A $200 tax applied every time one of these firearms changed hands or was newly made.
Then Congress, through a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, eliminated that $200 tax. Hendrix ruled that without the tax, the NFA's regulatory apparatus lost its constitutional anchor. The administration has used executive authority to reshape federal policy across multiple fronts, but in this case the legal groundwork was laid by Congress itself.
In his opinion, Hendrix wrote:
"Because today's NFA does not create any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power. 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 injunction went into effect on Aug. 13 after the DOJ failed to seek a stay. At the time, the department said it was still "assessing the impact of the court's ruling." Machine guns and explosive devices remain regulated under the NFA and are not covered by the injunction.
The ruling came in two consolidated cases brought by 15 red states, Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, and other Second Amendment organizations and individuals. The injunction applies not only to the named plaintiffs but also to plaintiff gun groups' members and customers, "both current and future." Annual membership in Gun Owners of America costs $25, a detail that underscores how broadly the ruling could reach.
Gun control advocates reacted sharply. Emma Brown, executive director of GIFFORDS, a pro-gun control organization, called the decision not to appeal a "failure to defend public safety." Brown went further in a statement to CBS News:
"The Trump Administration could bring us back to the days of Al Capone, where silencers and short-barreled shotguns were used to recklessly kill people."
That framing leans heavily on historical imagery. The NFA was originally passed in 1934 to target the kinds of weapons favored by mobsters, sawed-off shotguns, Tommy guns, and the like. But the legal question Hendrix addressed was narrower: whether the regulatory structure survives after Congress removed the tax that justified it. Brown's criticism is directed at the administration for declining to fight the ruling, but the provision that created the opening was enacted by Congress.
Jeffrey Cohen, a former associate chief counsel at the ATF, framed the stakes in broader terms:
"The 'Big Beautiful Bill' provision that quietly zeroed out the tax may ultimately do what no court, no Congress, and no administration has done in ninety years eliminate: the National Firearms Act, one of the primary American gun laws."
Inside the Justice Department, the ruling created real friction. Lawyers across multiple offices argued the government still had viable legal theories to defend the NFA's regulatory provisions, including the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. They also pointed out that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act left intact a separate tax on businesses that manufacture, distribute, or deal in the types of weapons at issue, an argument that, in their view, preserved at least part of the statute's taxing-power foundation.
One source familiar with internal discussions offered a blunter assessment, suggesting some DOJ lawyers were more concerned about their win-loss records than about the president's gun policies. Whatever the internal dynamics, Trump's decision settled the matter. The administration has shown a consistent willingness to direct federal agencies toward policy outcomes the president favors, even when career staff push back.
The DOJ's longstanding "duty to defend" principle holds that the department has a constitutional obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support. Critics of Trump's decision will likely argue that this principle required an appeal. Supporters will note that the law Congress passed, eliminating the tax, is itself the reason the ruling exists.
The ruling's downstream effects are not hypothetical. Earlier this month, the DOJ dismissed an indictment against Cameron Silmon in the Middle District of Alabama. Silmon had been charged with knowingly receiving a silencer without a serial number. His defense lawyer argued that Silmon joined some of the plaintiff gun rights groups after Judge Hendrix issued the injunction, bringing him under the ruling's protective umbrella.
Assistant attorney general Bren McMaken, prosecuting the case, pushed back. McMaken wrote that the government "disagrees with Silmon's position that a District Judge in the Northern District of Texas has the power to stop the United States Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama from enforcing the criminal laws of the United States." But the government dropped the silencer charge anyway. McMaken noted that an ongoing investigation had uncovered evidence of additional crimes, and Silmon now faces new charges including illegal possession of a machine gun.
The Silmon case illustrates a tension that will play out across federal courts. The injunction was issued in Texas, but defendants in other jurisdictions are already invoking it. Between 2017 and 2021, NFA-covered firearms accounted for about 5% of closed gun-trafficking investigations, according to an ATF report. That share may seem small, but it represents real cases that prosecutors now have less leverage to bring. Trump has not hesitated to assert authority over DOJ charging decisions when he believes the department's priorities are misaligned.
A White House spokesperson sought to reassure the public that the ruling does not create a free-for-all. The spokesperson said anyone previously prohibited from buying a firearm remains prohibited, and that "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."
That statement is accurate as far as it goes. The ruling does not touch federal prohibitions on felons possessing firearms, nor does it affect the background-check system. What it does remove is the NFA's registration, application, and fingerprinting regime for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers, the layer of federal oversight that has governed these weapons since the Roosevelt administration.
Gun control groups have pointed to high-profile cases to argue the timing is dangerous. Luigi Mangione, who pleaded guilty last month to shooting and killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Manhattan sidewalk, used a silencer on his weapon. The case is referenced in the CBS News report as context for the political sensitivity of loosening silencer restrictions. But the Mangione case involved a murder committed with an illegally possessed weapon, a crime that remains fully prosecutable under existing federal and state law regardless of the NFA ruling.
The administration's broader posture toward executive power has drawn both praise from conservatives and resistance from opponents. Recent DOJ actions at the Supreme Court level show a pattern of the administration pressing its legal positions aggressively where it chooses to fight, making the decision not to appeal in this case all the more deliberate.
Several open questions remain. It is unclear whether other interested parties, states, counties, or outside groups, might attempt to intervene and appeal on their own. The specific ATF guidance that will implement the court's order has not yet been released. And Congress has not signaled any intent to reinstate the tax or pass alternative legislation that might restore the NFA's constitutional footing.
For now, the practical result is straightforward. Members and customers of the plaintiff gun groups, a category the injunction defines as "both current and future", can possess, sell, and manufacture short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers without submitting to the NFA's registration and application process. The courts and the political branches will continue to shape the boundaries, but the immediate shift is real.
Congress removed the tax. A federal judge followed the logic. And the president decided not to argue with either of them. If gun control advocates want someone to blame, they might start with the lawmakers who pulled the legal foundation out from under the law they now want defended.