Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

On December 14, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in this case, upholding the district court's rejection of Plaintiff's challenge to an ATF rule determining that bump stocks are "machineguns" for purposes of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the federal statutory bar on the possession or sale of new machine guns.

However, after a majority of the eligible circuit judges voted in favor of hearing the case en banc, the court vacated its prior opinion so the entire court could hear the case.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 14, 2021.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 23, 2022 No. 20-51016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Michael Cargill, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General; United States Department of Justice; Regina Lombardo, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CV-349 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion December 14, 2021, 5 Cir., 2021, 20 F.4th 1004) Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Costa, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: No. 20-51016 A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated December 14, 2021, is VACATED. 2

Primary Holding

The Fifth Circuit vacated its prior-issued opinion in light of the fact that a majority of the circuit judges voted in favor of hearing the case en banc.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.