The suppressor lawsuit update heading into 2026 is this: Congress zeroed out the $200 tax stamp in 2025, but the federal registration requirement and eight state-level bans are still on the books, and the cases challenging them have not yet produced a ruling that changes what anyone can legally own. Two fronts matter right now. Federal challenges are testing whether the National Firearms Act can require registration of suppressors at all under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, and separate suits in ban states are asking whether outright prohibitions can survive. Nothing has been struck down. Existing rules remain fully enforceable.
What the $0 Tax Stamp Actually Changed
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R. 1, 119th Congress) amended 26 U.S.C. § 5811 to set the transfer tax at $0 for every NFA firearm except machine guns and destructive devices, and made the same change to the making tax under § 5821.1Congress.gov. H.R. 1 – 119th Congress – Text The current statutory text confirms suppressors now carry a $0 transfer and making tax.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 5811 – Transfer Tax
That removed a real financial barrier, but it did not remove the registration system. Suppressors are still classified as NFA firearms under 26 U.S.C. § 5845.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 5845 Definitions Buyers still file Form 4, submit fingerprints and a photo, and wait for ATF approval before taking possession. Possessing an unregistered suppressor is still a federal crime under 26 U.S.C. § 5861.4GovInfo. 26 USC 5861 – Prohibited Acts ATF eForm 4 processing has dropped sharply, averaging about 10 days for individual electronic submissions and 26 days for trust submissions in early 2026.5ATF. Current Processing Times
Because cost and wait time were two of the plaintiffs’ strongest talking points, the tax change forced current litigation to sharpen its focus on the registration requirement itself.
Federal Cases Challenging NFA Registration
The main federal case to watch is United States v. Peterson, pending in the Fifth Circuit. Peterson was indicted for possessing an unregistered suppressor and moved to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds, arguing the NFA’s registration framework is itself unconstitutional. He also raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to the ATF search. A ruling from the Fifth Circuit would be the first appellate decision to squarely address whether NFA registration of suppressors survives Bruen.
The closest existing precedent runs against the plaintiffs, but it predates the current legal test. In United States v. Cox (10th Cir. 2018), Shane Cox manufactured and sold suppressors in Kansas without registering them, relying on a state statute that purported to exempt Kansas-made firearms from federal law. The Tenth Circuit rejected every defense and upheld the NFA as a valid exercise of congressional power.6Justia. United States v. Cox, No. 17-3034 (10th Cir. 2018) Newer litigants argue Cox’s reasoning no longer controls because courts must now apply a historical-tradition test rather than balance government interests against individual rights.
State Ban Lawsuits
Eight states and the District of Columbia ban civilian suppressor possession outright: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. In those jurisdictions, having a suppressor is a crime regardless of federal paperwork.
Anderson v. Raoul, filed in the Southern District of Illinois, challenged that state’s ban on Second Amendment grounds. The district court granted the state’s motion to dismiss in September 2025, and the plaintiffs are appealing. That appeal could produce the first circuit-level opinion applying Bruen directly to a state suppressor ban. Padua v. Platkin, filed by a coalition of gun rights organizations in the District of New Jersey, raises a parallel challenge to New Jersey’s ban and remains in early stages.
For most gun owners, the state ban cases matter more than the federal ones. A favorable ruling would open ownership to millions of people in states where it is currently a felony. A loss could reinforce the view that suppressors sit outside constitutional protection.
The Bruen Argument Driving Both Fronts
Nearly every active suppressor case leans on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), which held that when the Second Amendment’s text covers conduct, the government must show the challenged regulation fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Without a historical analogue, the restriction is presumptively unconstitutional.7Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
The threshold question in every suppressor case is whether the device qualifies as an “arm” in the first place. Plaintiffs argue suppressors are functional components of a firearm system, designed to protect hearing and reduce recoil, and that they are in common use for lawful purposes, with roughly 3.5 million registered nationwide and legal ownership in 42 states. That common-use argument traces to District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the government generally lacks authority to ban arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.8Justia. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Because suppressors were not invented until 1909, plaintiffs argue no founding-era analogue exists for regulating them. No federal appellate court has issued a definitive published ruling on either question yet.
Legislation That Could Moot the Litigation
Two bills in the 119th Congress would go further than the tax change and remove suppressors from the NFA entirely. The Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404) would reclassify suppressors so they are no longer treated as NFA firearms.9Congress.gov. H.R. 404 – Hearing Protection Act Representative Andrew Clyde introduced the Constitutional Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 3228) in May 2025, which would eliminate federal registration requirements and NFA-specific background paperwork for suppressors. That bill has 48 cosponsors and has been referred to the Ways and Means and Judiciary committees.10Congress.gov. H.R. 3228 – Constitutional Hearing Protection Act
Neither bill has advanced past committee. If either passed, it would moot the federal NFA lawsuits overnight. State bans would remain in place unless individual courts strike them down or Congress adds a preemption provision, which neither bill currently contains.
One Trap Worth Knowing About: Constructive Possession
Federal prosecutors do not need to find an assembled suppressor to charge you. If you own a collection of parts that can only be assembled into a suppressor and you lack the NFA registration, the ATF treats that as possession of an unregistered NFA firearm. The issue comes up often with “solvent traps,” kits marketed as cleaning accessories that contain components nearly identical to suppressor internals. If an end cap is drilled, or if the parts have no plausible lawful use outside an NFA configuration, the penalties match those for a finished, unregistered device.
Courts and the ATF weigh factors like whether components are stored together, whether the owner has discussed building a suppressor online, whether all necessary parts were bought in a short window, and whether the parts have any non-NFA purpose. Treat unregistered suppressor parts the way you would treat a completed unregistered suppressor: do not possess them without an approved Form 1 (making) or Form 4 (transfer).
Where Things Stand for Owners Right Now
The financial barrier to federal ownership is gone, processing times are measured in weeks, and suppressors remain legal in 42 states through the NFA process. The harder constitutional question, whether the government can require registration of what plaintiffs call a protected arm, is unanswered at the appellate level. The Fifth Circuit’s handling of Peterson and the appeal in Anderson v. Raoul are the cases most likely to produce that answer in the near term. Until then, if you live in a ban state, a suppressor is still a felony to possess regardless of any federal paperwork, and everywhere else, the Form 4 process is the only lawful path.