GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC.; GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION; VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE; MATT WATKINS; TIM HARMSEN; RACHEL MALONE v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; DANIEL DRISCOLL, in his official capacity as Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. - Articles

All Content

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC.; GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION; VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE; MATT WATKINS; TIM HARMSEN; RACHEL MALONE v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; DANIEL DRISCOLL, in his official capacity as Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 2, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Robert J. Olson, WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, Stephen D. Stamboulieh, STAMBOULIEH LAW, PLLC, Olive Branch, Mississippi, Kerry Lee Morgan, PENTIUK, COUVREUR & KOBILJAK, P.C., Wyandotte, Michigan, Oliver M. Krawczyk, AMBLER LAW OFFICES, LLC, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Simon G. Jerome, Thomas Pulham, Brad Hinshelwood, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Federal law allows a “prevailing party” to seek reimbursement for attorney’s fees in suits against a federal agency unless the agency’s “position” was “substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). This case asks whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was “substantially justified” in treating rifles fitted with bump stocks as illegal “machineguns.” In 2017, the ATF departed from its long-held view on the legality of bump stocks. Its new interpretation produced a flood of litigation. Eventually, a circuit split led the Supreme Court to resolve this question against the ATF. See Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406, 415 (2024). The district court in this case nevertheless found the ATF’s reading substantially justified and so refused to award attorney’s fees to the challengers. We must give deference to the district court’s finding. And the court acted reasonably because of the substantial judicial disagreement that this novel legal question produced. We thus affirm.

Attachments: