But the federal government maintains there is no meaningful difference between bump stock-equipped rifles and machine guns, which both require only a single pull of the trigger to initiate a firing sequence.
At oral arguments in February, the court seemed divided on the issue, finding validity in the government’s argument, but questioning why federal lawmakers didn’t use broader language in the firearms act to capture bump stock-like devices.
The domestic abuse case is United States v. Rahimi, case number 22-915, and the bump stock case is Garland et al. v. Cargill, case number 22-976.
Agency Courts
Hedge fund manager George R. Jarkesy Jr. has lodged a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s in-house court system, which uses administrative law judges to assess fines and penalties against parties that violate federal securities law.
Jarkesy provided several reasons why the administrative court system should be dissolved, including claims it violates the U.S. Constitution’s non-delegation clause and its judges are protected from removal. But at oral arguments in December, the Supreme Court focused on his contention that the system violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The federal government counters that the Seventh Amendment doesn’t apply to administrative proceedings where the government is attempting to maintain a public right like an open and fair market.
