DOJ Ends 34-Year Freeze on Felony Gun Rights Restoration Applications

For 34 years, federal law has offered a statutory right to petition for firearm-rights restoration while a congressional appropriations rider prevented ATF from processing a single application. The DOJ's new rule attempts to resolve that contradiction through an executive-created online portal and case-by-case review—raising immediate questions under the Appropriations Clause, the APA, and Second Amendment doctrine. For legal and RegTech professionals, the rule is both a major regulatory change and a likely litigation magnet.

The U.S. Department of Justice finalized a rule on Monday, Aug. 17, 2026, creating a new administrative pathway for certain people with felony convictions to apply for restoration of their federal firearm rights. Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the process will operate through a new online portal and will grant relief on a case-by-case basis, weighing an applicant's record and reputation to determine whether the individual poses a likely threat to public safety. The rule represents a significant departure from the status quo that has prevailed since 1992, when Congress effectively barred the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from processing restoration applications. Although federal law technically permits petitions for reinstatement, the congressional appropriations rider has left no functioning federal mechanism to act on those petitions for more than three decades.

“

The rule represents a significant departure from the status quo that has prevailed since 1992, when Congress effectively barred the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from processing restoration applications.

Blanche framed the rule in expressly constitutional terms, saying, 'The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety.' That language tracks the individual-right interpretation articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Yet the final rule does not automatically restore anyone. It creates an application system in which people convicted of violent crimes, registered sex offenders, persons living in the country illegally, and other individuals officials believe pose a danger will be denied. The standard is discretionary and intentionally not self-executing.

From an administrative law perspective, the rule is most notable for how it attempts to circumvent a long-standing appropriations bar. Because Congress has refused to fund ATF processing since 1992, the department is establishing a new portal that appears to operate outside ATF's ordinary processes. That design raises immediate questions under the Appropriations Clause, the separation of powers, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Opponents are likely to argue that the executive branch cannot lawfully use a parallel regulatory vehicle to accomplish what Congress has expressly defunded, while supporters will characterize the move as a lawful exercise of the Attorney General's enforcement discretion and a fulfillment of the statutory right to petition. If challenged, courts will need to decide whether the new portal is a permissible use of existing appropriations or an end-run around a congressional limitation.

Potential plaintiffs include gun control organizations, state attorneys general, and perhaps even applicants denied under the rule. Because the rule establishes a federal benefit and denial standard, it is subject to APA review. Challengers may seek a preliminary injunction to block the portal from operating while litigation proceeds. A court sympathetic to the administration's Second Amendment arguments might resist such relief, but a court focused on the appropriations rider could find the rule ultra vires. The rule also creates interaction with state law; a federal restoration does not automatically authorize firearm possession under state statutes that impose their own disqualifications. Criminal defense attorneys, reentry advocates, and compliance officers will need to determine whether clients remain barred at the state level even after federal relief.