DOJ Lets Texas Ruling Stand: 15 States Freed From NFA Silencer Rules

For legal and regulatory practitioners, the pivotal issue is not firearms policy but the boundary of congressional authority. Judge Hendrix's ruling holds that the National Firearms Act's regulatory scheme collapses when its underlying tax is zeroed out, a statutory-reasoning shift that sidesteps Second Amendment doctrine entirely. The DOJ's decision to let the injunction stand raises immediate questions about agency compliance, the scope of plaintiff-specific relief, and the precedent this taxing-power analysis could set.

The Department of Justice has allowed a Texas federal court ruling to take effect, marking a meaningful shift in how the National Firearms Act (NFA) is enforced against a defined class of gun owners, manufacturers, and retailers. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix on August 5, 2026, enjoins enforcement of key NFA provisions covering silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns for the named plaintiffs — a group that includes 15 states and several firearm businesses and advocacy groups. Because the Trump administration declined to seek a pause by the judge's one-week deadline, the injunction is now operative, and covered parties may possess and transfer these items without federal registration or approval.

“

The Department of Justice has allowed a Texas federal court ruling to take effect, marking a meaningful shift in how the National Firearms Act (NFA) is enforced against a defined class of gun owners, manufacturers, and retailers.

The center of gravity is statutory, not constitutional. Judge Hendrix reasoned that Congress, by eliminating the NFA's transfer and making taxes last year and effectively setting the rate to zero, removed the constitutional hook on which the NFA's regulatory scheme has historically rested. The NFA was justified under Congress's taxing power rather than its commerce power. Once the tax disappears, the court concluded, the federal government's regulatory authority under the statute collapses for the affected plaintiffs. That is a notable departure from the Second Amendment litigation that has dominated firearms jurisprudence in recent decades; the court did not reach the right to bear arms at all. The Cato Institute described the outcome as a major shift in federal firearms regulation precisely because it turns on the scope of Congress's legislative authority.

The practical reach, however, is narrower than the headlines suggest. The injunction is not nationwide. It protects only the named plaintiffs and their members or customers, including manufacturers, retailers, and gun owners in states such as Texas, Georgia, and Utah. Everyone outside that litigation remains subject to the NFA's registration and approval requirements. Adding to the uncertainty, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has not yet updated its guidance. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action has cautioned that even covered parties must still comply with state registration requirements and certain federal rules governing the transfer and transportation of short-barreled firearms. In effect, the ruling is a targeted carve-out rather than a blanket deregulation.

The DOJ's decision not to seek a stay is itself consequential. By allowing the injunction to stand — rather than appealing or requesting a pause — the administration either accepted the court's reasoning or made a calculated choice to let the ruling generate further litigation. The order could still be modified or stayed, a possibility the NRA-ILA explicitly flagged. For regulated businesses, the immediate consequence is a compliance paradox: a manufacturer or retailer covered by the injunction may skip federal registration for covered items, yet must navigate a patchwork of state laws and unresolved ATF guidance.