DOJ Will Not Appeal the Texas NFA Registration Ruling

Last updated October 2026 · By Nick Hall, NFA owner who has sat through the Form 4 wait four times since 2019

Quick take: The Justice Department has told Congress it will not appeal the Texas ruling against NFA registration of suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs. That doesn’t make the injunction any wider, and it still covers only the plaintiffs and, where it applies, their agencies, members and customers. Whether it reaches every buyer in the 15 plaintiff states is a question the judge has not answered.

• What happened: Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley on September 24, 2026 that the Justice Department “has determined not to file an appeal” in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.
• Why it matters: DOJ is leaving in place the August 5, 2026 judgment that bars it and ATF from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs, with the 60-day appeal window closing on Monday, October 5.
• What’s next: Judge James Wesley Hendrix gave DOJ until October 12, 2026 to answer the states’ motion on whether the injunction applies statewide.
• Who to watch: ATF, which DOJ says is finalizing public guidance on the NFA with no release date, and the nine plaintiff states that asked for the clarification.

Until this week, nothing in the court record said DOJ wouldn’t appeal. The docket just had no notice of appeal on it. Now it’s on paper: a two-page letter to Congress, filed in the Texas case on October 1 as an exhibit to a four-page motion. I read both so you don’t have to. Here’s what they say, and what they leave exactly where it was.

Table of Contents

What the DOJ Letter to Congress Says

The letter is dated September 24, 2026. Solicitor General D. John Sauer signed it, and it is addressed to Senator Charles Grassley as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The sentence that matters is the first one: “Consistent with 28 U.S.C. 530D, I write to advise you that the Department of Justice has determined not to file an appeal in the above-referenced case.”

The rest is a summary of what Judge Hendrix decided. The NFA, the letter recounts, “imposed a $200 tax on the making or transfer of an NFA firearm” for most of its history, and in 2025 Congress eliminated that tax for short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers and AOWs.

The district court then held that the challenged NFA provisions could no longer be sustained for those items under Congress’s taxing power or its power over interstate commerce. The plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims were never decided. The final judgment dismissed them “without prejudice as abandoned.”

What the letter doesn’t contain is a reason. No explanation of why the department is standing down.

Why 28 U.S.C. 530D Makes DOJ Put It in Writing

The letter exists because a statute demands it. 28 U.S.C. 530D requires a report to Congress whenever the department decides “not to appeal or request review of” a ruling “adversely affecting the constitutionality” of a federal law.

That report has to arrive in time for the House and Senate “to intervene in timely fashion in the proceeding,” and no later than 30 days after the decision is made. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is one of the recipients the statute lists.

So this is a notice to lawmakers that the executive branch won’t take this part of the NFA to the Fifth Circuit, dated 11 days before the appeal deadline. As of October 2, the docket showed no filing from either chamber.

Because federal agencies are parties, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B) gives any party 60 days after entry of the judgment to file a notice of appeal, and counting from August 5 lands on Sunday, October 4, which Rule 26(a)(1)(C) pushes to the next day that isn’t a weekend or legal holiday: Monday, October 5, 2026.

The docket showed no notice of appeal as of October 2. Rule 4(a)(5) also lets the district court extend the time if a party asks within 30 days after the deadline and shows “excusable neglect or good cause.” So the letter is DOJ’s stated decision, and the deadline itself doesn’t arrive until October 5.

What the NFA Registration Ruling Still Doesn’t Do

But a decision not to appeal doesn’t make the injunction any bigger. The letter itself describes the relief as an order against enforcing the challenged provisions against “the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers.”

That means the individual plaintiffs, Silencer Shop Foundation, four companies (B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo Weapons Research and Hot Shots Custom), six associations including Gun Owners of America and the Texas State Rifle Association, and 15 states.

Customers are covered in a narrow way. Judge Hendrix wrote that the injunction “only covers current and future customers’ transactions with the plaintiffs and their commercial members.” A purchase somewhere else is not covered on that basis.

He also turned down a nationwide order. “Federal courts lack power to issue universal injunctions that provide relief to parties not before the Court,” the opinion says, right after describing relief for the plaintiffs, their members and their customers: “But that is as far as it goes.”

Machine guns and destructive devices are untouched. The letter says the court “did not enjoin the enforcement of other NFA provisions,” and that the decision does not reach those two categories, which are still taxed, or the special occupational tax on NFA importers, manufacturers and dealers.

There’s a smaller carve-out too. For the plaintiffs in the companion Jensen v. ATF case, the judgment says the injunction “does not extend” to the NFA’s regulation of AOWs.

And it is one district court’s judgment in one case. Missouri filed its own suit against ATF on September 8, and the letter does not mention it or any other challenge. I do not read it as a promise about them.

State law is separate too. The injunction runs against ATF and the Justice Department, so a state that restricts suppressors or short-barreled rifles still does.

The Statewide Question Is Still Open

Here’s the fight that matters to most buyers. Fifteen states are plaintiffs: Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. The opinion says the injunction will “extend to those states, their agencies, and their political subdivisions.”

On September 11, nine of them asked Judge Hendrix what that means. Their motion poses two questions: “whether the injunction applies statewide to all relevant transfers within the Plaintiff States” and “whether ATF must take any action to notify or identify individuals covered by the injunction.”

DOJ doesn’t read the order the way the states do. The certificate of conference on the states’ motion says that on August 20 the defendants “disagreed with the interpretation of the signatory State Plaintiffs, and the Parties could not reach agreement.”

The states say their attorney general offices have been “deluged with inquiries” from dealers and buyers. They also say that when dealers call ATF, the agency tells them to “consult an attorney to determine for themselves whether they are covered by the Court’s Order.” Dealers have been asking who the injunction actually covers ever since it took effect.

Kansas Attorney General Kris W. Kobach made it personal. An August 13 letter to the government’s lawyers, signed by nine attorneys general, says he “may purchase a suppressor in the weeks ahead and is willing to sign an affidavit if the ATF attempts to defy the order, either willfully or mistakenly.”

What DOJ Asked For, and What Judge Hendrix Gave It

The October 1 motion asked for ten more days. DOJ’s response to the states was due October 2, and it wanted October 12 instead, citing “two recent developments that bear on this matter.”

The first is the letter. The second is one line every dealer will read twice: ATF “is currently working to finalize public guidance regarding the NFA.” No date. No description of what the guidance will say.

DOJ told the court that guidance will likely inform its position on the states’ motion and “may obviate the need for the Court to resolve certain issues that the motion raises,” including whether ATF has to give guidance to licensed dealers.

The states opposed even a ten-day delay, saying their residents would be prejudiced by it. DOJ’s answer was pointed: the states “waited 37 days before seeking this clarification.”

Judge Hendrix granted the extension the next day. His October 2 electronic order says the defendants must respond to the states’ motion “no later than October 12, 2026.” That order moves a briefing deadline and nothing else. It does not say who is covered.

What Suppressor Buyers Should Do This Week

If you are not a plaintiff, a member of one of the plaintiff groups, or a customer buying from one of the plaintiff companies or their commercial members, the letter changes nothing about your paperwork. The Form 4 still applies to you. The states’ own motion puts the penalty for skipping registration at up to ten years in prison.

If you live in one of the 15 plaintiff states, you’re waiting on Judge Hendrix. The states say the injunction covers every relevant transfer inside their borders. DOJ disagrees. Until he rules, that is a dispute and not a rule.

If you think you are covered, ask the dealer which part of the judgment the transfer rests on before you leave the Form 4 behind. If the dealer can’t answer, you have your answer.

DOJ has put its decision in writing. ATF hasn’t yet. That second document is the one your dealer needs.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

---

Related Reading

• Dealers Are Transferring Cans on a 4473 and Passing
• DOJ Defends the NFA Registry After Winning Wolford
• The $0 Suppressor Tax Stamp: What Changed in 2026
• How to Buy a Suppressor in 2026: The Complete Guide
• Suppressor Wait Times in 2026: How Long a Form 4 Really Takes