IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

------------------------------------------------------- X

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

X

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States, et al.,

Defendants.

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

-------------------------------------------------------

MOTION OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION GROUPS FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, proposed amici curiae Brady United Against Gun 

Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, and March For Our Lives (the 

“Gun Violence Prevention Groups”), respectfully request this Court’s leave to 

submit the enclosed brief as amici curiae in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction in the above-captioned case.1 Proposed amici respectfully 

submit that the attached brief will provide timely assistance to the Court in 

evaluating Plaintiff’s pending motion to enjoin a recently promulgated federal rule 

that ensures proper regulation of the core components of “ghost guns.”

1 On August 29, 2022, counsel for amici requested the parties’ consent to file the proposed

amicus brief. Defendants consented and Plaintiffs did not. Amici received court permission 

to file similar amicus briefs in parallel litigation challenging the Rule in the Southern 

District of Texas and the District of North Dakota. See Order Granting Motion for Leave to 

File, Division 80 LLC v. Merrick Garland, et al., 22-CV-00148, ECF No. 37 (S.D. Tex.) (July 

12, 2022); Order Granting Motion for Leave to File, Morehouse Enterprises LLC v. Merrick 

Garland, et al., No. 3:22-CV-00116-PDW-ARS, ECF No. 64 (D.N.D.) (Aug. 17, 2022).

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 44 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 524
2

The “extent to which the court permits or denies amicus briefing lies solely 

within the court’s discretion.” U.S. ex rel. Gudur v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, 512 F. 

Supp. 2d 920, 927 (S.D. Tex. 2007), aff'd sub nom. U.S. ex rel. Gudur v. Deloitte & 

Touche, No. 07-20414, 2008 WL 3244000 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2008). In deciding 

whether to grant a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, courts principally 

consider “whether the proffered information is timely and useful.” Id. (citations 

and quotations omitted); see also, e.g., Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-CV-00167-O, 

2018 WL 4076510 (N.D. Tex. June 15, 2018) (O’Connor, J.) (granting leave to file 

four amicus briefs).

The Gun Violence Prevention Groups’ proposed amicus brief would be both 

timely and useful. The brief would be timely, as the Court is currently assessing 

Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and amici seek leave to file with 

sufficient time for Plaintiffs to consider and, if necessary, address amici’s 

submission in Plaintiffs’ reply. 

Amici also would offer the Court useful information based on their extensive 

experience with the Gun Control Act, regulations implementing the Act, gun safety 

legislation generally, and ghost guns specifically. The Gun Violence Prevention 

Groups regularly submit amicus briefs regarding gun violence and regulation2 and 

2 See, e.g., Brady’s Br., New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, et al. v. The City of New York, et 

al., No. 18-280 (S. Ct.); Everytown’s Br., Kim Rhode, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al., 20-55437 

(9th Cir.); MFOL’s Br., Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., 

21-CV-11269, ECF No. 125 (D. Mass). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 44 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 525
3

have litigated cases concerning ghost guns.3 Indeed, in the last two months, the 

Gun Violence Prevention groups have filed two amicus briefs addressing ghost guns 

in parallel litigation challenging the same rule in other Districts and, both times, 

amici received court approval to do so.4 The interests and relevant experience of 

each of the Gun Violence Prevention Groups is as follows. 

Brady United Against Gun Violence (“Brady”) is the nation’s longest-standing 

nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing gun violence through 

education, research, and advocacy. Brady has researched the prevalence of ghost 

guns, created educational resources to demonstrate the alarming ease with which 

ghost guns can be obtained and assembled, and advocated on behalf of 

commonsense measures to regulate ghost guns. 

Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund (“Everytown”) is the nation’s largest 

gun-violence-prevention organization. Everytown has studied the rise of ghost 

guns, the detrimental effects of ghost guns on public safety, and the subversive 

effects of ghost guns on state and federal gun laws. 

March For Our Lives (“MFOL”) is a nonprofit organization comprised of 

young people from across the country who are fighting for sensible gun-violenceprevention policies. MFOL has fought for measures to curtail the proliferation of 

3See, e.g., Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, et al., 20-CV-6885 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Aug. 26, 2020). 

4 Gun Violence Prevention Groups Br., Division 80 LLC v. Merrick Garland, et al., 22-CV00148, ECF No. 24-1 (S.D. Tex.) (July 8, 2022); Gun Violence Prevent Groups Br.,

Morehouse Enterprises LLC v. Merrick Garland, et al., No. 3:22-CV-00116-PDW-ARS 

(D.N.D.) (Aug. 17, 2022).

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 44 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 526
4 

ghost guns and has focused in particular on the deadly effects of ghost guns on 

teenagers. 

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeks a nationwide injunction 

against a regulation that implicates the core focus and expertise of amici and their 

members: the sensible regulation of firearms, including ghost guns. The disposition 

of Plaintiff’s motion could have far-reaching effects on the future of firearm safety 

laws, regulation, and advocacy. Consequently, the Gun Violence Prevention Groups 

respectfully request leave to file the attached amicus brief. A proposed order is 

attached to this motion.

August 30, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Daniel Grooms

ADAM M. KATZ* 

RACHEL ALPERT* 

COOLEY LLP

500 Boylston Street

Boston, MA 02116

Telephone: (617) 937-2300

akatz@cooley.com 

ralpert@cooley.com 

DANIEL GROOMS* 

MATT K. NGUYEN* 

COOLEY LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 842-7800

dgrooms@cooley.com 

mnguyen@cooley.com 

*pro hac vice forthcoming

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 44 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 527
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of August 2022, a true and accurate copy 

of the foregoing motion was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system to all counsel of 

record.

August 30, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Daniel Grooms 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 44 Filed 08/30/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 528