Brown v. ATF: Summary Judgment Hearing Challenges NFA Registration After Tax Elimination
On August 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment in Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The hearing, before Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark, addressed a major constitutional challenge to core registration and regulatory provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns, and certain other items after Congress reduced the longstanding $200 making and transfer tax on those items to zero.
Arguments began at approximately 1:37 p.m. and concluded around 3:20 p.m. Counsel for the plaintiffs (John Ohlendorf) and the government (Jody Lowenstein) presented their positions, with limited time also allocated for amici. The court took the motions under submission and permitted the parties to submit supplemental authority by August 14, 2026. No ruling was issued from the bench.
Background of the Case and the NFA Landscape
Filed on August 1, 2025, Brown is a coordinated challenge brought by individual plaintiffs Chris Brown and Allen Mayville, Missouri retailer Prime Protection STL, LLC, and major gun-rights organizations including the National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and American Suppressor Association. Defendants are the ATF, its director, the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General.
The NFA has long required registration, fingerprints, photographs, ATF approval (via Forms 1 and 4), and payment of a $200 tax for the making or transfer of certain “firearms,” including suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Congress originally grounded the statute in its taxing power. The Supreme Court upheld key aspects of the regime on that basis in Sonzinsky v. United States (1937).
In 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (sometimes called the Big Beautiful Bill) reduced the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, SBRs, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to $0, effective January 1, 2026, while leaving registration, approval, and related requirements in place. Machineguns and destructive devices retained the $200 tax. Plaintiffs argue that eliminating the tax removed the constitutional foundation for the remaining regulatory scheme as applied to the now-untaxed items.
Plaintiffs’ Core Arguments
Plaintiffs advance two primary claims. First, they contend the registration, application, possession, and related requirements exceed Congress’s enumerated powers. Because the NFA was enacted and upheld as a tax measure, and because the relevant taxes are now zero, the regulatory provisions are no longer necessary and proper to the collection of a tax. Plaintiffs reject government attempts to recharacterize the scheme under the Commerce Clause or other powers after the fact, arguing courts cannot retroactively supply a constitutional basis Congress never invoked.
Second, plaintiffs argue the registration regime violates the Second Amendment as applied to suppressors and short-barreled rifles. They maintain these items are “Arms” in common use for lawful purposes (self-defense, sporting use, and hearing protection). Under the framework of District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government must demonstrate a historical tradition of analogous regulation. Plaintiffs assert no such tradition exists for the NFA’s burdensome, discretionary registration system.
Individual plaintiffs describe concrete injuries, including lengthy delays in prior ATF approvals and the inability to transfer or acquire items without complying with the remaining NFA process. Organizational plaintiffs assert associational standing on behalf of members facing the same barriers.
Government Position and Procedural Posture
The government defends the scheme as remaining within Congress’s taxing authority, arguing that registration continues to support collection and enforcement of the special occupational taxes still paid by dealers, manufacturers, and importers of NFA items. It also invokes the Commerce Clause and maintains the regulations do not facially violate the Second Amendment. Standing challenges and arguments about the facial versus as-applied nature of the claims have featured in the briefing.
The case has been heavily briefed. After initial summary-judgment filings in late 2025 and early 2026, the court ordered supplemental briefing on novel issues. Oral argument was previously scheduled and continued before being reset for August 10. In the days leading up to the hearing, the court specifically directed the parties to address the relevance of a recent related decision from the Northern District of Texas.
The Texas Ruling and Its Shadow Over the Hearing
Just five days earlier, on August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix issued a significant decision in the consolidated cases Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF. Judge Hendrix held that the NFA’s regulatory provisions for the now-untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s enumerated powers. Because the statute was enacted under the taxing power and no longer generates revenue from those items, the registration and related requirements could not be sustained. The court permanently enjoined enforcement against the plaintiffs (and, where applicable, their members and customers) but stayed the judgment for seven days to allow the government to seek appellate relief. The court did not reach the Second Amendment claims.
That ruling was a first-of-its-kind district-court rejection of core NFA registration on tax-power grounds after the tax reduction. Judge Clark’s order requiring discussion of the Hendrix analysis made clear the Missouri court viewed the Texas decision as highly relevant to the arguments in Brown.
What Happened at the Hearing and What Comes Next
Public reporting and court docket entries confirm that arguments were presented on the tax-power theory, the Second Amendment claim, the impact of the Texas decision, standing, and the proper scope of any relief. Amici on both sides participated within the time limits set by the court. The motions remain under submission. Any decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Eighth Circuit regardless of the outcome.
A ruling for the plaintiffs on either the enumerated-powers or Second Amendment ground would mark another major blow to the NFA’s remaining framework for suppressors and short-barreled rifles, potentially expanding the practical effect of the Texas injunction. A government victory would preserve the status quo in the Eighth Circuit and set up a clearer circuit split or path for further appellate review. Supplemental filings are due by August 14, after which the court is expected to issue a written decision.
Brown v. ATF is one of several parallel challenges testing whether the NFA’s registration regime can survive the elimination of the tax that historically justified it. The August 10 hearing represents a critical stage in that litigation. The outcome will help determine the future scope of federal regulation of items long treated as NFA firearms but now subject to a zero-dollar tax.