President Donald Trump’s newDepartment of Justice and gun law court challenges.

 

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to appoint a new Attorney General, the nominee will receive confirmation from the Republican-majority Senate. This appointment could have significant implications for how the Department of Justice (DOJ) approaches the defense of federal gun control laws currently facing legal challenges in the courts. Traditionally, the DOJ defends federal statutes when challenged. However, there have been notable exceptions; for instance, the DOJ opted not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during the Obama administration, arguing it was unconstitutional. 

A similar scenario may arise with federal gun laws, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). The Bruen ruling set a higher constitutional bar for upholding firearm regulations, mandating that any restrictions must align with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition as understood at the time of the Founding. This decision has essentially invalidated thousands of gun laws throughout the nation. This shift in precedent could serve as a compelling rationale for the DOJ to abstain from defending certain gun laws it deems indefensible under this new framework.

If the incoming Attorney General decides not to defend particular gun laws, it could significantly influence the outcome of these cases, potentially leading to those laws being struck down if no other parties intervene. Alternatively, Congress or advocacy groups might attempt to step in to uphold the statutes.

While the Attorney General does have the authority to decide whether to defend federal laws, exercising this discretion could be politically charged, especially concerning gun control. A decision not to defend could face scrutiny from both sides of the debate, but Bruen provides a legitimate legal basis for declining to defend laws that may no longer pass constitutional muster. This approach could have profound implications for the future of firearm regulation in the United States.