UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING 

GROUP INC., et al., 

Intervenor Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

FINAL JUDGMENT

This Judgment is issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). 

This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been duly 

considered and a decision duly rendered,

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on grounds that the 

Final Rule was issued in excess of ATF’s statutory jurisdiction (Counts I and III) are 

GRANTED and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment as to those claims are 

DENIED. 

2. On these grounds, the Final Rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of 

Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022) (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, and 

479 (2022)), is hereby VACATED. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 231 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4804
2

3. The parties’ remaining claims are DENIED as moot.1

4. All other relief not expressly granted herein is denied. 

SO ORDERED this 5th day of July, 2023. 

1 Orig. Pls.’ Am. Compl., ECF No. 93 (claiming Final Rule: Exceeds Statutory Authority (Count I), Violates 

APA’s Notice and Comment Requirement (Count II), Violates APA’s Ban on Arbitrary and Capricious 

Conduct (Count III), Violates Nondelegation Principles (Count IV), Violates Take Care Clause (Count V), 

Violates Due Process (Count VI), Violates the First Amendment (Count VII)). 

See also BlackHawk’s Compl., ECF No. 99 (claiming Final Rule: Exceeds Statutory Authority (Count I), 

Violates Separation of Powers (Count II), is Unconstitutionally Vague (Count III), is Arbitrary and 

Capricious (Count IV), Violates the APA’s Procedural Requirements (Count V), Violates the 

Nondelegation Doctrine (VI), is Contrary to Constitutional Right, Power, Privilege, or Immunity (VII), 

Violates the Commerce Clause (VIII), Unlawfully Chills First Amendment Speech (IX), Constitutes an 

Unconstitutional Taking Without Just Compensation (Count X)). 

See also Defense Distributed, et al.’s Compl., ECF No. 143 (claiming Final Rule: Exceeds Statutory 

Authority (Count I), Violates the APA’s Procedural Requirements (Counts II and IV), Violates Delegation 

Principles (Count III), Violates the Second Amendment (Count V), Violates Due Process (Count VI)). 

See also Polymer80’s Compl., ECF No. 229 (claiming Final Rule: Violates Separation of Powers (Count 

I), Exceeds Statutory Authority (Count III), Violates Nondelegation Doctrine (Count V), Violates APA’s 

Procedural Requirements (Counts VII and XII), is Arbitrary and Capricious (Count IX), Violates First 

Amendment (Count XV), Violates Second Amendment (Count XIV), is Unconstitutionally Vague (Count 

XIII), Exceeds Limits of Commerce Clause (Count XVI), Violates the Takings Clause (Count XVII)). 

As discussed in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, Polymer80, Inc. may move for summary judgment on 

any remaining claims not mooted by the Court’s opinion. Mem. Opinion at 16, ECF No. 227. Polymer80 

SHALL file a notice on the docket no later than July 12, 2023, informing the Court whether its remaining 

claims are moot and, if so, proposing an order of Final Judgment as to those claims. 

See also JSD Supply’s Compl., ECF No. 230 (claiming Final Rule: Exceeds Statutory Authority (Count I),

Violates Separation of Powers (Count II), is Unconstitutionally Vague (Count III), is Arbitrary and 

Capricious (Count IV), Violates APA’s Procedural Requirements (Count V), Violates the Nondelegation 

Doctrine (Count VI), is Contrary to Constitutional Right, Power or Privilege (Count VII), Violates the 

Commerce Clause (Count VIII), Violates First Amendment (Count IX), Violates the Takings Clause (Count 

X)). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 231 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 4805