Supreme Court Asks for Justice Department’s Position on SBRs

AmmoLand ^ | August 4, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

A facial challenge to the federal requirement for registration and paying a tax in order to possess short-barreled rifles has made its way to the Supreme Court. A facial challenge is a direct challenge to the statute, claiming the statute itself is unconstitutional.

The case of Jamond M. Rush v. United States started in February 2022 in the Southern District of Illinois. Rush was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, an Anderson Manufacturing AR-15 .223 rifle. The court suppressed the original charge.

A superseding indictment, substituting a new charge for the old charge, was issued on August 16, 2022. The latest indictment was for the possession of an unregistered firearm, under the National Firearms Act (NFA), presumably for the same Anderson Arms AR-15 type rifle with a 7.5″ barrel.

Rush entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing the rifle under the National Firearms Act (NFA), with the proviso that the case could be appealed on the basis of the law being unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the Bruen decision. The Seventh Circuit upheld the Circuit Court decision, primarily using the 1934 Miller case, which failed to find the 1934 National Firearms Act unconstitutional. For many reasons, Miller was not a clear statement on the Second Amendment and had many flaws.

Rush then asked the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari, which would allow the case to be appealed before the Supreme Court. On June 13, 2025, writing for the United States Government, the US Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, waived its right to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari.

On July 31, 2025, the Supreme Court requested (ordered) the US Government to file a response to the petition.

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; il; nfa; sbr

[marktwain]

Correction: The request by the Supreme Court is not an order. The DOJ could ignore it, but it seems unlikely they would do so.

The Supreme Court seems interested in this case. The Trump administration DOJ has an opportunity to opine on the Constitutionality of taxes and registration of short barreled rifles.

[vikingd00d]

Is the DOJ required to oppose the petition? Could they not simply concede that the law is unconstitutional?

[marktwain]

The DOJ is not required to oppose the position.

They could put forward a breif stating the ban on short barreled rifles is not Constitutional under the Second Amendment.

They may do so. The Trump administration pushed to remove short barreled rifles from the National Firearms Act, which would kill the registration requirement. The tax has already been removed legislatively, with the law to take effect on January 1, 2026.

[marktwain]

Not really a “ban”. The tax and registration requirements in the NFA for short barreled rifles.

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/short-barreled-rifles-were-not-to-be-regulated-nfa/

[MileHi]

Re: Miller

https://guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

Miller should be overturned, for many reasons.

[nagant]

Is the DOJ required to oppose the petition? Could they not simply concede that the law is unconstitutional?
~~~~~

Then what will happen when the next liberal president decides that the law IS constitutional, and starts arresting people?

Roberts is attempting to avoid a permanent judgement by this conservative court just so that your scenario can play out without Roberts having to take a stand.