Four federal lawsuits are currently challenging the National Firearms Act’s registration requirement for short-barreled rifles, suppressors, and other regulated items, and any one of them could become the SBR lawsuit that reshapes federal gun law. Three are coordinated cases backed by the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and American Suppressor Association; the fourth is led by Gun Owners of America. All four sit at the summary judgment stage in federal district courts as of mid-2026, and none has produced a merits ruling. The shared argument: once Congress zeroed out the $200 NFA transfer tax effective January 1, 2026, the registration regime the tax was meant to support lost its constitutional basis.
Why the Zero-Dollar Tax Opened the Door
The National Firearms Act of 1934 taxed the manufacture and transfer of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, and “any other weapons” at $200 per item. It was framed as a tax, not a direct regulation of firearms, and that framing is what let it survive constitutional review. In Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), the Supreme Court upheld the NFA on the ground that the $200 levy was “productive of some revenue” and that the registration provisions were “obviously supportable as in aid of a revenue purpose.”1Library of Congress. Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 The Court refused to look behind Congress’s stated taxing rationale.2Cornell Law Institute. Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506
That rationale held for almost 90 years. Then, on July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which reduced the NFA transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to zero dollars, effective January 1, 2026.3Independent Institute. Big Beautiful Bill Suppressors The registration requirement stayed on the books. Buyers still have to submit an ATF Form 4 and wait for approval before taking possession.4DFW NFA Law. Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Removes Tax on National Firearms Act
Gun-rights groups saw the gap immediately. If registration was constitutional only as an aid to collecting the tax, and there is no tax left to collect, the registration requirement has nothing left to lean on.5Second Amendment Foundation. Brown v. ATF (NFA)
The Four Lawsuits and Where Each One Stands
Three of the cases are coordinated across different federal districts, giving the coalition multiple paths to a favorable ruling. The fourth was filed independently by Gun Owners of America.
Brown v. ATF (Eastern District of Missouri)
Filed August 4, 2025, by the NRA, SAF, ASA, FPC, a retailer called Prime Protection STL, and two individual members. The complaint argues that the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under the taxing power, that Congress has no other constitutional authority to create a firearm registration system, and that registration of suppressors and SBRs violates the Second Amendment because there is no historical tradition supporting it.6Guns and Ammo. NRA Lawsuit NFA
In March 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark ordered supplemental briefing on standing for a pre-enforcement challenge, whether Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by keeping registration after zeroing out the tax, and how the “common use” doctrine from Heller and Bruen applies to suppressors.7Ammoland. Federal Judge Orders More Briefing in Challenge to NFA Registration Scheme Oral arguments on cross-motions for summary judgment were set for June 18, 2026. Through May 2026, no ruling had been issued.5Second Amendment Foundation. Brown v. ATF (NFA) This is the furthest along of the four.
Jensen v. ATF (Northern District of Texas)
Filed in October 2025 by the ASA Foundation, NRA, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC, and the Texas State Rifle Association.8American Suppressor Association. Litigation SAF filed its own motion for summary judgment in November 20259Second Amendment Foundation. SAF Files Motion for Summary Judgment in NFA Case and a response brief opposing the government’s summary judgment motion in January 2026.10Second Amendment Foundation. SAF Files Response Brief in Texas NFA Lawsuit Summary judgment is fully briefed.
Roberts v. ATF (Eastern District of Kentucky)
Filed February 26, 2026, by the Buckeye Firearms Association, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a manufacturer called Meridian Ordnance, and two individuals.11NRA-ILA. NRA Announces Third Lawsuit Challenging the National Firearms Act It targets registration for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons,” raising the same taxing-power and Second Amendment theories.12Buckeye Firearms Association. BFA Joins Federal Lawsuit Challenging ATF Tax Stamp Requirement
Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on April 24, 2026.13Second Amendment Foundation. Roberts v. ATF Appendix to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment The government filed its cross-motion on May 27, 2026, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the NFA is still supported by remaining occupational taxes on manufacturers and dealers, and that Congress has independent authority under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause.14Firearms Policy Coalition. Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment and in Opposition, Roberts v. ATF
GOA v. ATF (Northern District of Texas)
Gun Owners of America filed separately, joined by its foundation arm, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Silencer Shop Foundation, several firearms manufacturers, and fifteen states led by Texas. GOA filed a motion for summary judgment on October 7, 2025, seeking a declaratory judgment that the NFA registration requirements are unconstitutional and an injunction blocking their enforcement.15Gun Owners of America. Gun Owners of America Files Motion for Summary Judgment Against ATF Challenging NFA Provisions Alongside the shared taxing-power theory, the GOA coalition relies on United States v. Constantine (1935) for the proposition that when a tax provision no longer intends to raise revenue, it functions as a penalty rather than a tax, which would make it an unconstitutional intrusion on state police powers.16The Reload. Why Gun Owners of America Says the New $0 National Firearms Tax Is Unconstitutional
What the Government Is Arguing
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is defending the registration requirements, a decision that has frustrated many gun-rights advocates. The DOJ has shifted the constitutional footing of the NFA away from the taxing power alone. Its position rests on three sources of authority: the taxing power (via the occupational taxes still imposed on NFA importers, manufacturers, and dealers), the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause.17The Reload. DOJ Defends the NFA
On the tax argument, the government contends that fingerprinting and registration are part of a “web of regulation” aiding enforcement of the surviving occupational tax on NFA businesses. On the Commerce Clause, it cites Gonzales v. Raich (2005) for the proposition that Congress can regulate the manufacture and possession of NFA items as part of a broader regulation of economic activity affecting interstate commerce.17The Reload. DOJ Defends the NFA
More than 40 members of Congress filed a brief arguing that the DOJ’s theory “would effectively transform the NFA from a tax statute into an independent federal gun-registration regime—an outcome Congress has never authorized, has repeatedly rejected, and in fact expressly prohibited.”18Senate HSGAC. Testimony of Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America Gun Owners of America called the DOJ’s position a “betrayal of the Second Amendment.”19Gun Owners of America. GOA Alert on DOJ NFA Defense
The Second Amendment Claim and What It Runs Into
All four lawsuits also argue that short-barreled rifles and suppressors are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment and that no historical tradition supports registering them, the test the Supreme Court set in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).6Guns and Ammo. NRA Lawsuit NFA
Existing case law cuts hard the other way on short-barreled long guns. United States v. Miller (1939) held that the Second Amendment did not protect a short-barreled shotgun absent evidence of a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”20Cornell Law Institute. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) recast Miller as holding that the Second Amendment does not protect “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”21Touro Law Review. Second Amendment and NFA Analysis
Lower courts have used that reasoning to reject SBR challenges after Bruen. In September 2023, a judge in the Northern District of Texas found that short-barreled rifles are not in “common use” for self-defense, qualify as “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and fall outside Second Amendment protection, rejecting the defendant’s attempt to use historical blunderbusses as analogues.22GovInfo. United States v. Miller, No. 3:23-CR-0041-S (N.D. Tex.) In December 2025, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Peterson assumed without deciding that suppressors are “arms” but held that the NFA is “presumptively constitutional” as a “shall-issue” licensing system with “narrow, objective, and definite standards,” while leaving open the possibility that a future challenger could show the ATF had applied the NFA toward “abusive ends” through excessive fees or wait times.23FindLaw. United States v. Peterson, No. 24-30043 (5th Cir.)
Why the Supreme Court’s Cert Denials Don’t Settle This
Two criminal defendants recently asked the Supreme Court to take up the Second Amendment question, and both were turned away on the same day.
In Rush v. United States, Jamond Rush was convicted in the Southern District of Illinois of possessing an unregistered AR-15 with a 7.5-inch barrel and sentenced to 30 months.24U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. United States v. Rush, No. 23-3256 (7th Cir.) The Seventh Circuit affirmed in March 2025, holding Miller remained binding and Bruen had not overruled it. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to deny review, arguing that Miller and Heller together place short-barreled firearms outside Second Amendment protection.25Supreme Court of the United States. Brief in Opposition, Rush v. United States, No. 24-1259 Certiorari was denied on December 15, 2025.26SCOTUSblog. Rush v. United States
In Robinson v. United States, David Robinson Jr. was convicted in the Middle District of Florida of possessing an unregistered SBR and sentenced to 18 months of probation. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in March 2025 on the same reasoning, and Robinson’s petition raised both Second Amendment and Tenth Amendment taxing-power claims.27Supreme Court of the United States. Petition for Certiorari, Robinson v. United States, No. 25-5150 The Supreme Court denied certiorari the same day as Rush.28Supreme Court of the United States. Docket, Robinson v. United States, No. 25-5150
Those denials do not resolve what the new suits are asking. Rush and Robinson were criminal defendants attacking their convictions under the NFA as it existed with the $200 tax in place. The four pending civil cases are pre-enforcement challenges built on a different premise: that the constitutional analysis changed when the tax dropped to zero.
What Changes for You Right Now
Nothing, yet. No court has ruled on the merits in any of the four cases, and no injunction has been entered against NFA registration requirements. Buying a suppressor, SBR, short-barreled shotgun, or “any other weapon” still requires an approved ATF Form 4 before you can take possession, even though the transfer tax is now $0.4DFW NFA Law. Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Removes Tax on National Firearms Act Machine guns are not covered by the tax elimination and are not part of these lawsuits.
The question the district courts have to answer is whether a registration system originally justified as a tax measure can survive after the tax it was designed to support has been eliminated. Whichever way the first ruling goes, the losing side is almost certain to appeal, and the issue is likely to return to the Supreme Court on a record built specifically around the post-2026 legal landscape rather than an old criminal conviction.