,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld the Trump Administration's executive action to prohibit bump stocks. drive.google.com/open?id=10SVlL…
2/ DOJ expressly declined to rely on Chevron deference, and said it "would prefer that the Rule be set aside rather than upheld under Chevron." However, CADC found the issue could not be waived, the statute was ambiguous (shocker) and then found interpretation was reasonable. 
3/ This appeal presents such an attractive vehicle to pair back Chevron deference: (1) DOJ doesn't it applied, (2) the rule imposes criminal penalties, (3) the rule of lenity suggests contrary construction. Plus you have the contraband takings issue down the road.
4/ Plus you have the "major question" doctrine issue--can the agency enact this rule which overnight made 200,00 Americans criminal, and turned a commonly-owned device into contraband. See papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
5/ I thought the panel would much this case as un-cert-worthy as possible. For example, DOJ said there was no actual new rule. This was always the law. They merely announced a new discretionary policy. Yet, this expansive Chevron ruling put a certiorari ribbon on the petition.
6/ I can see Judge Henderson's dissenting view get 5 votes. (She did reference the issue of Presidential Reversals--the subject of our @CatoInstitute brief--but alas, no citation) cato.org/blog/bump-stoc… @ishapiro @MattLaAtLaw
7/ The panel gave the Plaintiffs 48 hours to seek a stay from CJ Roberts. Coming soon.
9/ Prediction: if #SCOTUS reverses CADC, Justice Breyer reads his dissent from the bench. I can't think of anything that would infuriate him more: the Court declines to afford an agency deference, and instead sets aside a prohibition on firearms.
