As we’ve talked about, cases change numbers and names as they travel through the system.

This is a history of the VanDerStok v. Garland cases as they have moved through the courts. If you make it too the end, it discusses where we are and what the tea leaves have been.
(1400 words)


Aug 11, 2022
Complaint filed by Jennifer VanDerStok et al. challenging the ATF’s frame and receiver rule
Aug 17, 2022
Motion for injunction filed by Plaintiffs (Good Guys)
Aug 18, 2022
ATF moves to have the case transferred to a different court.
Aug 29, 2022
The court asks the parties to argue for or against shortening the case by combining the preliminary injunction phase with the merits phase.
Sep 2, 2022
The court grants a preliminary injunction in part. (good news)
Sep 10, 2022
The court declines to transfer the case
Sep 16, 2022
The court orders everybody to hurry up. They want expedited briefings
Oct 1, 2022
The court expands the scope of who is covered by the injunction. (good news)
Oct 25, 2022
The ATF filed the administrative record the day before, the Court now tells everybody that this is going to move fast and be prepared to argue the merits (no preliminary injunction hearings) 14 days after the Court says go.
Nov 1, 2022
The ATF lets the court know they are asking the Fifth Circuit to stop the preliminary injunction
Nov 3, 2022
The Court adds BlackHawk Manufacturing Group to the list of protected parties under the Preliminary Injunction
Dec 23, 2022
The plaintiffs (good guys) file a motion for Summary Judgement
Feb 13, 2023
The ATF files a cross motion for Summary Judgement
Mar 6, 2023
The Court grants Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation coverage under the original preliminary injunction.
Jun 27, 2023
Fifth Circuit court has all briefings in hand and scheduled oral arguments for Sep, 2023
Jul 5, 2023
The court issues its final judgement. In that judgement, they find that the final rule violates ATF’s statutory jurisdiction and vacates the final rule.
Jul 14, 2023
The ATF asks for an Emergency Stay pending appeal
The Fifth Circuit Court dockets a new case.
July 18, 2023
The Court grants a 7-day administrative stay
Jul 25, 2023
The Fifth Circuit calendars the case for Sep 7, 2023.
The District court issues a stay pending appeal
Jul 24, 2023
The Fifth Circuit court stays the vacatur pending appeal
Jul 27, 2023
The ATF requests a stay from the Supreme court regarding the Preliminary Injunction and Final Judgement
Aug 8, 2023
The Supreme Court stays the vacatur of the Northern District Court of Texas. (bad news)
Sep 6, 2023
The Fifth Circuit Court dismisses the appeal because the ATF asked them in one case.
Sep 7, 2023
Oral argument heard before Judges Willett, Engelhardt, Oldham

Sep 14, 2023
The district court enjoins the ATF from enforcing their final rule

Sep 25, 2023
Oral arguments are scheduled for Sep 28, 2023
Sep 28, 2023
Oral arguments are heard
Oct 2, 2023
The Fifth Circuit Court vacates the injunction as to non-parties. (so-so news)
Oct 5, 2023
ATF applies to the Supreme Court to vacate the injunction pending appeal on the Emergency Docket
Oct 6, 2023
Justice Alito stays the injunction administratively for 10 days.
Justice Alito orders all responses to be in place by Oct 11, 2023
Oct 16, 2023
The application is referred to the court
The September 14, 2023, order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No 4:22-cv-691, is vacated

Injunctions, Vacaturs, Stays and Judgements, Oh My!

An injunction is an order from the court to a particular person or persons to stop doing something. The state can be enjoined from enforcing a law. A company can be enjoined from shipping goods.

It is an order to stop. The three types of injunctions we normally see are Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary Injunction and final Injunction. A TRO is normally limited to 14 days. It is designed to get to a hearing on a Preliminary Injunction. A Preliminary Injunction lasts until the final judgement. It is designed to hold things in a preferred state, as defined by the court, until a final judgement on the merits is given.

Injunctions are the most common type of relief sought by plaintiffs.

A “vacatur” is an order from the court declaring something null and void. As if it never was. When the N.D.TX vacated the ATF’s rule, it was as if that rule had never been. Therefore, every person who was affected by that rule was no longer threatened by that rule.

Having a rule or law vacated is a complete win at that level of the court system.

Superior courts can vacate inferior court’s injunctions and vacaturs. When the Supreme Court G\grants certiorari, vacates the judgement, and remands the case, they are declaring that the inferior court’s opinion is null and void. The inferior court is then required to do it over and issue a new judgement, following the directions of the Supreme Court.

A stay is an order from the court to stop something from happening temporarily. A court can stay themselves or an inferior court. Judge Benitez issued his final judgement in Duncan v. Bonta and then stayed his own order long enough for the state to seek an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court.

We see the Circuit Courts issue stays frequently. Unfortunately, in Second Amendment Challenges, those stays are normally in favor of the state.

A final judgement is the court’s final word on something. That might mean they are issuing an injunction or vacating a regulation. The only thing that happens after the final judgement, at that level, is bookkeeping actions. Sentencing, in criminal cases, awarding of fees, and other administrative tasks.

At the next superior level, appeals can be made. If the superior court wishes, they can stay the inferior court, or they can vacate and remand, or they can vacate and issue their own judgement.

What the Heck Happened in VanDerStok

Many people are upset about the current situation. They are attempting to read the tea leaves of the Supreme Court.

From the history of the case, you can see that The People won the first round with a vacatur of the final rule. This was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court by the state/ATF.

Wile this was going on, the Fifth Circuit was working on the appeal from the ATF.

The Supreme Court vacated the District court’s vacatur of the final rule, pending appeal

This is significant. The Supreme Court is telling the inferior courts to keep working the problem. They are not granting the relief sought by the plaintiffs (good guys), but they haven’t said that the opinion was wrong.

The Fifth Circuit is working the appeal and the District Court does what it was told to do. Since their vacatur was itself vacated, they need a do-over.

In that do-over, they used an injunction to stop the government instead of the vacatur. This was a compliant way to issue the same relief for The People while obeying the Supreme Court. It was also gamesmanship.

When the ATF got slapped down by the district court a second time, they ran crying to the Supreme Court, again. The Supreme Court did the same thing they did the first time around. They vacated the injunction pending appeal.

What this means is that it will be the ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court that determines the final judgement for VanDerStok. Not a district court.

Side Notes

I located around 10 different cases at three different federal court levels in this single “case”. There are at least three at the Fifth Circuit, there are two at the Supreme Court, and multiple cases at the District level.

The history presented above was produced by reading the dockets in multiple different cases and attempting to reconcile them. Sometimes the inferior cases are put on hold pending superior court results, sometimes the cases keep rolling along.

I do not think The People are really any worse off than we were before the Supreme Court vacated the injunction pending appeal. We still have multiple Second Amendment Cases working towards the Supreme Court. I expect good things from the Supreme Court over the next 6 months.

Spread the love

By awa

One thought on “Vanderstok v. Garland(Frames and Receivers)”
  1. Timeline is extremely well documented and I’m going to use it for my group briefing as there are some things I had missed.

    Your reporting on this case is frustrating but appreciated as I see the bad guys getting multiple slices of cake with no sense of urgency as they hope to bankrupt or run out interest. I understand that is just how the court works but it feels like a petulant child being told to do some chore by a parent and goes on to do a subpar job. Parent says no try again and the child again does a subpar job either maliciously or hoping the parent will get fed up and say its good enough or get annoyed and do it themselves.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.