The Department of Justice informed the Fifth Circuit it is voluntarily dismissing its appeal of a ruling that invalidated a federal ban on handgun sales to adults under 21.
The filing came after the Office of Legal Counsel concluded the challenged statutes clash with the Second Amendment and may not be enforced through criminal penalties on dealers.
The Daily Caller reported that DOJ told the appeals court the dispute is now moot because the department will not enforce the provisions against anyone, anywhere. The case pits the Firearms Policy Coalition against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and traces back to a November 2020 challenge once known as Reese v. ATF.
On September 17, 2026, OLC answered a question from the Attorney General. The office determined that Sections 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), along with their implementing regulations, are inconsistent with the Second Amendment in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen and Wolford.
OLC concluded the challenged restrictions “may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns” to persons between the ages of 18 and 21. That conclusion supplied the basis for DOJ’s later court filings.
The memo framed the age cutoff against other legal thresholds that already treat eighteen-year-olds as adults. It stated:
"Our laws deem an eighteen-year-old ‘mature enough to be drafted, vote, serve as a juror, and be sentenced to death.’ One such eighteen-year-old represented the United States at the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, shooting skeet."
The same memo continued with a concrete example involving a University of Texas at Arlington student:
"Yet, due to statutes predicated on concerns over an eighteen-year-old’s ability to handle a pistol as a responsible adult, it would have been a federal felony if a licensed dealer had sold her such a firearm before she left or after she returned to her studies at the University of Texas at Arlington."
Those passages underscored OLC’s view that the handgun sales ban could not be squared with constitutional text and history after Bruen and Wolford.
Plaintiffs first filed the suit in November 2020. A federal district court initially granted the Biden administration summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit reversed that decision.
In January, following the appellate ruling, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidated the federal law prohibiting handgun sales to adults under 21. The government appealed that judgment to the Fifth Circuit, keeping the dispute alive until the OLC memo changed the executive branch’s position.
The Firearms Policy Coalition has remained a lead plaintiff throughout. On October 5, 2026, the group posted on X that DOJ had filed both a motion to dismiss its appeal and a response brief arguing the case is moot because the government “will not enforce the challenged provisions against anyone, anywhere.”
On Monday, DOJ moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2) to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, with each party to bear its own costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs authorized the government to state that they consent to the motion.
The government’s motion told the court:
"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2), the government respectfully moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in this case, with each party to bear its own costs."
In a companion brief, DOJ tied the dismissal request directly to the OLC determination. The brief stated that on September 17, 2026, OLC found the statutory sections and regulations inconsistent with the Second Amendment, and that the restrictions may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers selling handguns to persons ages 18 to 21.
DOJ then argued the controversy had ended. The brief said:
"In light of that determination, this dispute is now moot. The Department of Justice’s determination that it will not enforce the challenged provisions against anyone, anywhere, demonstrates that there is no longer a live controversy."
The same filing added that the court need not and should not address the scope of relief questions that otherwise would have been presented. Even if the court found the case not moot, DOJ said the OLC opinion left no basis for expanding the permanent injunction in the manner the plaintiffs requested.
DOJ has publicly confirmed it will not enforce Sections 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) or the related regulations against anyone, anywhere. That non-enforcement pledge is the stated reason the department views the Fifth Circuit appeal as moot.
Authorities have not publicly detailed every implementing regulation covered by the OLC memo beyond the statutory sections named in the brief. Investigators and the court have not released a full public accounting of how the permanent injunction will operate going forward once the appeal is dismissed.
The precise calendar date of the Monday filings sits inside the window reported around the October 7, 2026 article. The Fifth Circuit’s next procedural step after receiving the consent motion has not been described in the available filings summary.
By invoking Rule 42(b)(2) and securing plaintiff consent, DOJ seeks a clean exit from the appellate fight. A voluntary dismissal would leave the district court’s January judgment for the plaintiffs in place without further appellate review of the age-based handgun sales ban.
The OLC memo supplies the constitutional rationale. It treats eighteen-year-olds as full adults for core civic duties and capital punishment, then rejects a federal felony bar on licensed dealers selling them handguns. That reasoning tracks the post-Bruen demand for historical analogues rather than interest-balancing.
Plaintiffs had sought clarity on the scope of relief. DOJ’s brief asks the Fifth Circuit to avoid those questions now that the executive branch has declared nationwide non-enforcement. Whether the district court’s injunction already reaches every dealer transaction involving 18-to-20-year-olds remains a matter the parties and the court will need to sort under the existing judgment.
The case caption has appeared as both Reese v. ATF and FPC v. ATF. The named defendant agency is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. No public statement in the package identifies the individual Attorney General who posed the question that produced the September 17 memo.
For licensed dealers, the practical effect of the OLC conclusion is immediate: the federal government says it will not pursue criminal penalties for handgun sales to adults between 18 and 21. That removes the felony threat the memo illustrated with the Olympic skeet shooter studying at the University of Texas at Arlington.
For 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old adults, the district court judgment plus the DOJ non-enforcement pledge undercuts a longstanding federal barrier that treated them as too immature for handgun purchases while still subjecting them to the draft, jury service, and the death penalty.
The Fifth Circuit now holds a consent motion to dismiss and a brief that calls the controversy moot. How quickly the court acts, and whether any residual injunction-scope issues survive, will determine the formal end of the appellate chapter that began after the January district court win for the plaintiffs.
The Firearms Policy Coalition framed the Monday papers as confirmation that the government has abandoned its defense of the young-adult handgun ban. DOJ’s own words in the brief track that description by announcing non-enforcement “against anyone, anywhere.”
Constitutional rights do not shrink because a bureaucracy prefers a lower age cutoff. When the Justice Department’s own lawyers finally put that reality in an OLC memo and walk away from the appeal, the ban’s defenders lose more than a docket number.
