The Trump Justice Department on Thursday abandoned its appeal of a federal court ruling that struck down the Biden-era ATF “engaged in the business” rule, a regulation that gun-rights groups said could have turned a single private firearm sale into a federal crime. The move effectively lets the lower-court decision stand and signals the administration’s intent to dismantle one of the most aggressive regulatory expansions of the Biden years on Second Amendment grounds.
Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward framed the decision as a matter of constitutional principle. Breitbart News reported that Woodward tied the withdrawal directly to the administration’s broader posture on firearms policy:
“Under President Trump’s and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s leadership, the Justice Department is committed to rolling back Biden-era policies that ran roughshod over the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”
That is not throwaway rhetoric. The DOJ also indicated it plans to “revise” the rule, not simply let it die, but actively reshape it. For gun owners who spent the last two years watching the Biden administration stretch federal firearms law past its statutory limits, Thursday’s action marks a concrete reversal.
The “engaged in the business” rule, issued by Biden’s ATF, attempted to redefine who qualifies as a firearms dealer under federal law. Gun Owners of America described the regulation’s practical effect in stark terms: “Under the rule, even a single private firearm sale could suddenly become a federal crime. And ATF inverted the ordinary judicial process, presuming gun owners guilty until proven innocent.”
That framing captures the core objection. The Biden ATF did not persuade Congress to change the law. It issued an administrative rule that expanded the definition of “dealer” far beyond what the statute authorized, a familiar pattern for an administration that repeatedly used executive action to accomplish what it could not win through legislation.
In the summer of 2024, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority. His decision barred the agency from enforcing the rule against residents of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah. It also blocked enforcement nationwide against members of Gun Owners of America, the Tennessee Firearms Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
The Biden DOJ appealed. The Trump DOJ dropped that appeal.
Thursday’s withdrawal fits a broader pattern. The Trump Justice Department has moved systematically to unwind legal positions inherited from the Biden administration, particularly in cases where federal agencies pushed past their statutory boundaries or where prosecutors pursued politically charged cases on shaky constitutional ground.
The most prominent example came in the classified-documents case. On January 29, 2025, the Trump DOJ notified the Eleventh Circuit that it was dropping the government’s appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago documents indictment, as National Review reported. Cannon had thrown out the charges against Donald Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
Federal prosecutors withdrew their appeal with prejudice, formally ending the case against Nauta and De Oliveira and eliminating all remaining criminal exposure tied to the documents matter. Newsmax reported that the filing stated: “The United States of America moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal with prejudice.”
That case had its own tortured history. Jack Smith had filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit after Cannon’s dismissal, as the New York Post documented at the time. House Speaker Mike Johnson called Cannon’s original ruling “good news for America and for the rule of law.” The Trump DOJ’s decision to end the appeal confirmed what many conservatives had argued from the start: the prosecution rested on a constitutionally defective appointment.
The firearms rule withdrawal follows the same logic. When an agency exceeds its authority and a court says so, the proper response is not to keep fighting, it is to accept the ruling and fix the policy through lawful means.
Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision had immediate, tangible effects. Residents of four states, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, gained protection from enforcement. Members of three national gun-rights organizations received nationwide relief. That is a significant footprint, covering hundreds of thousands of lawful gun owners who faced potential criminal liability under the Biden rule for conduct that had never before been treated as dealing in firearms.
The Biden administration’s approach to firearms regulation followed a familiar playbook: when Congress would not pass the gun-control measures the White House wanted, the ATF would issue rules that effectively rewrote the statute. The “engaged in the business” rule was perhaps the most ambitious example. It took a term Congress had defined, “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, and stretched it to cover casual, occasional private sales that no reasonable reading of the law would classify as commercial dealing.
Democrats have struggled to maintain a coherent posture on executive power and legal authority, particularly as their own members break ranks on major policy questions. The party that cheered aggressive executive action under Biden now finds itself watching those same actions dismantled, not by partisan fiat, but by courts applying basic statutory limits.
The DOJ’s statement that it intends to “revise” the rule suggests the administration will not simply leave a vacuum. A revised rule, drafted within the actual boundaries of the statute, would give the ATF a defensible regulatory framework without criminalizing ordinary private sales. That is the kind of lawful process the Biden ATF skipped.
Gun Owners of America and the other plaintiff organizations deserve credit for pressing this fight. They challenged the rule in court, won before Judge Kacsmaryk, and held the line while the Biden DOJ appealed. Their persistence forced the legal question into the open and gave the Trump administration a clean opportunity to withdraw a legally indefensible position.
The Biden administration’s regulatory record on firearms was marked by repeated attempts to achieve through rulemaking what it could not achieve through legislation. That approach carries a cost, not just in legal defeats, but in public trust. When federal agencies treat statutory text as a suggestion rather than a constraint, they undermine the legitimacy of the entire regulatory system.
Meanwhile, Democratic leaders continue to challenge Trump administration actions in court on other fronts, making the contrast all the sharper. The same party that defended the ATF’s statutory overreach now demands strict adherence to legal limits when the executive branch acts in ways it dislikes.
The Trump DOJ’s decision to drop the appeal also carries a practical message for federal agencies: if you issue a rule that exceeds your authority, this administration will not spend taxpayer dollars defending it. That is a meaningful shift from the Biden-era posture, which treated every regulatory expansion as worth fighting for regardless of its legal foundation.
Several details remain unclear. The exact court venue beyond Judge Kacsmaryk’s bench has not been specified in available reporting. The case name and docket number have not been publicly identified. And the precise language the Trump DOJ used in its withdrawal filing, beyond the stated plan to “revise” the rule, has not been released.
What form the revised rule will take matters enormously. A narrowly drawn regulation that tracks the statutory text would be defensible. A rule that simply softens the Biden version without fixing its fundamental overreach would invite another round of litigation. Gun-rights organizations will be watching closely.
The Biden family’s legacy continues to generate headlines on multiple fronts, from Hunter Biden’s reported financial troubles to the legal wreckage of policies that never had a solid statutory foundation. The “engaged in the business” rule is one more entry on that list, an ambitious regulation built on sand, struck down by a federal judge, and now abandoned by a Justice Department that recognizes the difference between lawful authority and political ambition.
The broader pattern is unmistakable. Democrats under pressure have grown accustomed to governing through executive shortcuts, rules, guidance documents, and agency interpretations that bypass Congress and stretch statutes past recognition. Courts have started pushing back. And the Trump DOJ, rather than inheriting those fights and defending indefensible positions, is letting the losses stand.
That is not weakness. That is how the system is supposed to work, agencies operating within their authority, courts enforcing statutory limits, and a Justice Department honest enough to stop defending what the law does not support.
When the government stops trying to criminalize ordinary Americans for exercising a constitutional right, that is not a policy retreat. It is a correction long overdue.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.