Three NFA Suits Set Up a SCOTUS Showdown Over Registry

Last updated April 2026 · By Nick Hall, NFA owner who has tracked Form 1 and Form 4 filing changes since 2019 and watched every post-Bruen registry challenge move through the courts

Quick take: Three federal lawsuits filed in Kentucky, Missouri, and Texas argue the National Firearms Act registry for short-barreled rifles and suppressors no longer rests on a constitutional foundation.

The legal hook is the One Big Beautiful Bill, which zeroed the $200 NFA transfer and making tax in 2025. With no tax, there’s no taxing-power justification for the registry. Summary judgment briefing is now active in the Roberts case in the Eastern District of Kentucky. The Second Amendment Foundation, NRA, FPC, ASA, and CCRKBA are all in the room. SCOTUS is the next stop, and the timing is closer than most NFA owners think.

• What’s challenged: Registration of SBRs and suppressors under the NFA after Congress zeroed the underlying tax in the 2025 budget reconciliation bill.
• Who filed: SAF, NRA, FPC, ASA, CCRKBA, GOA-affiliated foundations, plus state-level co-plaintiffs across three federal districts.
• What’s next: Summary judgment in Roberts v. ATF (E.D. Ky.). Expect a district ruling, then circuit appeals from one or more of the three cases, then a SCOTUS cert petition.
• Who to watch: Sixth Circuit (covers Kentucky), Eighth Circuit (Missouri), and Fifth Circuit (Texas). A circuit split puts the case on the Supreme Court’s docket faster than a clean record.

If even one of the three district courts rules the registry unconstitutional in the post-tax world, the appellate process accelerates. If they all decline, the cert petition still has the cleanest legal hook the NFA has faced since 1934. Either path ends at the Supreme Court.

Here’s what each case argues, why the One Big Beautiful Bill matters more than the headlines suggested at the time, and what an NFA registry reversal would actually look like for owners.

What Each of the Three Cases Argues

Case	Court	Lead Plaintiff	Procedural Stage	Circuit	Major Organisational Plaintiffs
Roberts v. ATF	E.D. Kentucky, Covington Division	T.J. Roberts	Summary judgment motion filed April 2026 (most procedurally advanced)	6th Circuit	JPFO, ASA Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Assn, Center for Human Liberty
Brown v. ATF	Missouri	Chris Brown	Filed August 2025	8th Circuit	SAF, NRA, ASA, FPC
Jensen v. ATF	Texas (Northern / Western District)	John Jensen	Filed	5th Circuit	CCRKBA, FPC Action Foundation, Texas State Rifle Assn

The three suits are coordinated in legal theory and staggered in venue. The legal theory is that Congress wrote the NFA in 1934 under its Article I taxing power, the Supreme Court upheld it in Sonzinsky v. United States (1937) on that basis, and the registry exists as the administrative apparatus for collecting the tax. Zero out the tax, and the taxing-power justification collapses. The plaintiffs argue Congress can’t keep an Article I tax-collection regime running when there’s no tax to collect.

Roberts v. ATF sits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Covington Division. Lead plaintiff T.J. Roberts is joined by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the American Suppressor Association Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Center for Human Liberty, Meridian Ordnance, and individual plaintiff Zachary Cockrell. The Roberts plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in April 2026, which makes this the most procedurally advanced of the three.

Brown v. ATF was filed in Missouri in August 2025 with Chris Brown and Allen Mayville as individual plaintiffs alongside Prime Protection STL, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the American Suppressor Association, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. This one has the deepest organizational bench. It’s also the case that landed first, which gives it timeline leverage if the Eighth Circuit moves quickly.

Jensen v. ATF is the Texas action, with John Jensen and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms leading, joined by FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, Texas State Rifle Association, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith. Texas matters because cases out of the Northern and Western districts route through the Fifth Circuit, which has been the most aggressive post-Bruen appellate court in the country.

The three cases ask for largely the same relief: a declaratory judgment that the SBR and suppressor registration requirements are unconstitutional after the elimination of the tax, and an injunction barring further enforcement of the registry against the plaintiffs. None of the three demands a return of historically paid $200 stamps, which is a deliberate procedural choice to keep the relief narrow and the merits clean.

Why the One Big Beautiful Bill Is the Whole Ballgame

When the One Big Beautiful Bill zeroed the NFA transfer and making tax in 2025, most coverage framed it as a back-door deregulation win. That framing was incomplete. The tax-zero matters less for what it removes (the $200 cost) and more for what it kicks out from underneath the registry’s legal foundation.

Sonzinsky v. United States, the 1937 case that upheld the NFA, did so on a single ground: Congress had power to tax. The opinion explicitly declined to rule on whether the registration requirements were independently constitutional. The Court treated registration as the natural administrative byproduct of a tax that Congress had authority to collect. With the tax intact, the registry was a tail attached to a constitutional dog. With the tax at zero, the plaintiffs argue, the tail is just a tail.

This isn’t a hypothetical Second Amendment argument. It’s an Article I argument about whether Congress retains enumerated authority. The Second Amendment overlay matters for the relief — the plaintiffs frame the registry as a continuing infringement on protected conduct under Bruen and Heller — but the core attack is structural. The structural attack is also why the cases have a real shot at moving fast through the courts. Article I challenges don’t require the Bruen-style “history and tradition” record-building that has bogged down most post-2022 firearms litigation.

“We have the best opportunity in almost a century to end the registration scheme for silencers and short-barreled rifles,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said about the joint litigation effort. That’s not press-release puffery in this context. The taxing-power hook genuinely hasn’t existed in this form before. Every prior NFA challenge had to argue around an active tax. These three argue from the post-tax world.

The Path to SCOTUS

The procedural path to the Supreme Court runs through three different circuit courts, which is by design. Roberts goes through the Sixth Circuit. Brown through the Eighth. Jensen through the Fifth. Three circuits with different post-Bruen track records ruling on the same legal question is the exact recipe for a circuit split, and circuit splits are the most reliable path to a Supreme Court cert grant.

If all three circuits agree the registry survives without the tax, the issue still reaches SCOTUS via cert petition because the constitutional question is unresolved at the highest level. If one or two circuits strike the registry while another upholds it, cert is essentially mandatory. The Court doesn’t leave that kind of conflict in place.

Timing-wise, the realistic window is 18 to 30 months from the first district court ruling to SCOTUS argument. The Roberts summary judgment motion lands first, district ruling probably in 2026, Sixth Circuit appellate cycle through 2026-2027, cert petition in 2027 or 2028. Brown and Jensen feed in over the same period. None of this is fast. None of it is glacial either, by federal litigation standards.

The parallel pressure point is Silencer Shop Foundation v. BATFE, case 6:25-cv-00056 in the Northern District of Texas, which we covered in the GOA ATF data leak post. Silencer Shop is a different case but the same legal universe: it challenges the entire NFA regulatory framework after the tax-zero, and it has its own summary judgment briefing already in front of a federal judge. Four cases on parallel tracks, all built on the same OBBB tax-zero hook, is what the plaintiffs needed to make the issue impossible for the Supreme Court to ignore.

If the Registry Falls

Practically, here’s what an NFA registry reversal would look like for SBR and suppressor owners.

Existing approved Form 1 and Form 4 registrations stay valid for the items already registered. The plaintiffs aren’t asking the courts to invalidate past registrations; they’re asking to enjoin future enforcement of the registration requirement. New SBR builds and new suppressor purchases would no longer require a Form 1 or Form 4. The eight-to-fourteen-month wait time for ATF approval evaporates. So does the requirement to wait for an approved transfer before taking possession.

Title II of the NFA — machine guns and destructive devices — is not part of these cases. The plaintiffs deliberately scoped the litigation to SBRs and suppressors, the two categories where the post-2025 tax-zero applies. Hughes Amendment machine gun challenges are a separate fight on a different legal track, and conflating the two would muddy the merits.

The downstream effects on the suppressor and SBR markets are easy to predict. Wait times collapse from a year to whatever the FFL transfer process takes. Inventory turns faster. Suppressor manufacturers can build to demand instead of building to a known year-long backlog. Pistol-brace ambiguity becomes mostly moot because SBR registration becomes mostly moot. The whole regulatory scaffolding around how Americans buy these specific items goes away.

A parallel Executive Branch shift is already in motion: USPS reversed its 1927 handgun mailing ban on April 2, 2026, also based on a Bruen-grounded DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion. For NFA owners reading this, the practical takeaway is the inverse of the GOA ATF data leak takeaway. There the operating reality was unhappy. Here the operating reality might finally turn the other way.

Watch the Roberts summary judgment ruling. It’s the first domino. Once it falls, the rest of the timeline accelerates.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

---

Related Reading

• GOA Asks DOJ IG to Probe ATF Gun Owner Data Leak
• What Is the National Firearms Act? NFA Explained
• ATF Pulls 122 Gun Store Licenses This Year
• U.S. Gun Laws by State