Agency Authority in Criminal Law Legislation

The topic of agency authority in criminal law legislation addresses the extent to which federal agencies, like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), can enact regulations that have the force of law without explicit Congressional approval. Recent legal cases have highlighted the tension between agency rule-making and the requirement for legislative authority, particularly in the context of firearm regulations.

The case of VanDerStock v. Garland illustrates this conflict, as it challenges the ATF’s redefinition of what constitutes a “firearm” under the Administrative Procedures Act. The ATF’s actions, which classify certain firearm parts as firearms themselves, have been criticized as exceeding the agency’s authority and infringing on rights protected by the Second Amendment. Similarly, the Cargill v. Garland case resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that deemed the ATF’s bump stock ban unlawful, reinforcing the principle that only Congress has the power to create criminal laws. The outcome of these cases underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between legislative powers and regulatory actions taken by federal agencies, emphasizing that significant changes in criminal law must originate from elected representatives rather than bureaucratic entities.

Key Legal Precedents

• VanDerStock v. Garland: This case focuses on the ATF’s unilateral redefinition of “firearm,” questioning the legality of agency actions that affect gun ownership without Congressional legislation.
• Cargill v. Garland: The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case vacated the ATF’s bump stock ban, reinforcing that regulatory agencies cannot create criminal laws and must operate within the bounds set by Congress.

Implications for Future Regulations

The rulings in these cases may set important precedents for how federal agencies can regulate firearms and other areas of public policy. They highlight the necessity for agencies to act within their statutory limits and signal potential challenges to future regulations that may overreach their authority. This evolving legal landscape may prompt agencies to reconsider their regulatory approaches and seek clearer legislative mandates for significant policy changes.