City of Syracuse, NY v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Background

Four cities—Syracuse, New York; San Jose, California; Chicago, Illinois; and Columbia, South Carolina—and Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund brought this Administrative Procedure Act case against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), its acting director Regina Lombardo, the United States Department of Justice, and William Barr.

The plaintiffs challenge the ATF’s interpretation and enforcement of the Gun Control Act. They contend that the Act covers unfinished frames and receivers that are designed to be, or can readily be converted into, operable weapons. According to the complaint as described by the court, gun-building kits containing those items can be assembled into “ghost guns,” which lack serial numbers or other identifying markings. The plaintiffs ask the court to set aside an ATF interpretive rule issued in 2015 and three ATF determination letters issued in 2015 and 2017 to Polymer80. They also seek relief concerning the ATF’s delay in responding to their petition for rulemaking.

The parties were briefing cross-motions for summary judgment when the proposed intervenors filed their motion. The proposed intervenors were Zachary Fort, Frederick Barton, BlackHawk Manufacturing Group, Inc., doing business as 80% Arms, and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. The court described 80% Arms as a producer and retailer of unfinished frames and receivers and FPC as an organization that owns and possesses such items and has members with an asserted interest in the litigation.

Intervention as of Right

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requires intervention as of right when a timely applicant has an interest related to the case, may have that interest impaired if the case proceeds without the applicant, and is not adequately represented by the existing parties.

The court found that the motion was timely. It also found that the proposed intervenors had sufficient legal and economic interests because a ruling for the plaintiffs could affect their ownership of ghost guns and existing business practices, potentially putting some entities out of business. The court further found that those interests could be impaired by a judgment invalidating the ATF’s rule and determination letters.

The proposed intervenors failed, however, to show that the ATF and the Department of Justice would not adequately represent their interests. The court found that the proposed intervenors and the federal defendants shared the same ultimate goal: upholding the ATF’s current rule and establishing that the ATF’s interpretation of the Gun Control Act did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The federal defendants had indicated that they intended to defend their interpretation and seek summary judgment. Different motivations or economic interests did not establish inadequate representation. The court therefore denied intervention as of right.

Permissive Intervention

Rule 24(b) allows a court to permit intervention when an applicant has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. The court has broad discretion under this rule.

The court declined to allow permissive intervention. It noted that the proposed intervenors’ submissions appeared to seek a Second Amendment challenge to the ATF’s interpretation, while the plaintiffs’ case concerned whether the ATF’s actions were lawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. Adding those issues could expand the case beyond its existing scope. The court also found that intervention would substantially complicate management of the litigation, which already involved many interested parties seeking to participate as amici—people or organizations allowed to provide views to the court without becoming parties.

The court concluded that the proposed intervenors had not shown why their interests should be treated differently from those of the amici already permitted to participate. It stated that it would consider their views in an amicus brief if they chose to file one.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to intervene. The proposed intervenors were permitted to file an amicus brief by January 15, 2021, if they chose to do so. The order addressed only intervention and did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying challenge to the ATF’s rule, determination letters, or delay in responding to the rulemaking petition.