Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

ALITO, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–976 
_________________ 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. MICHAEL CARGILL 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 14, 2024] 

  JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. 
  I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no 
other way to read the statutory language.  There can be lit-
tle  doubt  that  the  Congress  that  enacted  26  U. S. C. 
§5845(b)  would  not  have  seen  any  material  difference  be-
tween  a  machinegun  and  a  semiautomatic  rifle  equipped 
with a bump stock.  But the statutory text is clear, and we 
must follow it. 
  The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not 
change  the  statutory  text  or  its  meaning.    That  event 
demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock 
can  have  the  same  lethal  effect  as  a  machinegun,  and  it 
thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b).  But an 
event that highlights the need to amend a law does not it-
self change the law’s meaning. 
  There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of 
bump  stocks  and  machineguns.    Congress  can  amend  the 
law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had 
stuck with its earlier interpretation.  Now that the situation 
is clear, Congress can act.