On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited ruling in Bondi v. Vanderstok, upholding the Biden administration’s 2022 rule that allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” But while headlines may frame this as a Second Amendment loss, that’s not the real story here.

The real story is this: the administrative state just scored another narrow, but important, win—and once again, it did so not through an act of Congress, but through bureaucratic interpretation.

Let’s walk through what actually happened.

The Case Wasn’t About Gun Rights—Not Directly

To be clear, Bondi v. Vanderstok didn’t challenge the constitutionality of any gun ownership or the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. This case was a challenge to the ATF’s rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—a law meant to prevent executive agencies from exceeding their statutory authority.

READ MORE: Ghost Gun Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

The plaintiffs, including firearm kit manufacturers and gun rights advocates, argued that the Gun Control Act of 1968 does not authorize the ATF to regulate incomplete gun parts or weapon-building kits unless they meet the Act’s strict definition of a “firearm.” The Fifth Circuit agreed and struck the rule down. But the Supreme Court reversed, holding that some kits—particularly those that can be readily converted into functioning weapons—do fall within the existing definition.

From a narrow legal standpoint, that’s understandable. But the broader implications are harder to ignore.

This Is a Quiet Expansion of Federal Power

The Court’s decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, hinges on how the law defines a “firearm”—a term that includes not only fully built guns but also frames, receivers, and weapons that can be “readily converted” into operable firearms.

That language, originally written to address starter pistols and decommissioned weapons, is now being used to bring homemade gun kits under federal regulation.

This may sound reasonable on paper—especially given concerns over untraceable firearms—but it opens the door to something much more troubling: the broadening of executive power through regulation rather than legislation.

Congress never passed a law banning or regulating ghost guns. Instead, the ATF reinterpreted existing law to give itself that authority. And the Supreme Court just signed off on that approach.

That’s the real concern here. Not the regulation itself, but the process.

Justice Thomas Was Right to Sound the Alarm

In a blistering dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that the Court was effectively rewriting the statute to allow the executive branch to regulate products Congress never intended to regulate. He pointed out that the Gun Control Act only allows the ATF to regulate certain gun parts, not any part or unfinished frame that might one day become part of a gun.

He also noted that the logic behind the majority’s ruling could eventually be used to justify classifying AR-15 receivers as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act—an outcome that would have massive legal implications for millions of gun owners nationwide.

Thomas's concern wasn't just about firearms. It was about checks and balances—about who writes the law, who enforces it, and who decides what it means. When courts defer too broadly to agencies, the legislative process gets sidelined.

Why Conservatives Should Pay Attention

This case may not move the needle on gun rights directly, but it raises the temperature in the ongoing battle over the administrative state. We've seen this story before: whether it's the EPA regulating carbon emissions, OSHA mandating vaccines, or the ATF redefining what a gun is, federal agencies have grown increasingly comfortable acting like lawmakers.

That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

For all the talk of separation of powers and constitutional limits, what we’re seeing is a slow but steady centralization of authority in unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies. And courts—even those with a nominal conservative majority—too often allow it when the right case and narrative come along. What makes this decision somewhat difficult to swallow is the fact that so many rulings over the last few terms have done the opposite.

The danger here isn't just about guns. It’s about precedent.

What Comes Next

While the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bondi v. Vanderstok limits itself to the "facial validity" of the ATF rule, it leaves the door open for future challenges. The decision does not say that every homemade firearm kit can be regulated—only that some kits clearly fall within the law’s bounds. There is still room for “as-applied” lawsuits that may claw back some ground.

But the real lesson for conservatives is this: we can’t afford to ignore the administrative state. Regulatory power is increasingly the vehicle for progressive policymaking, especially when legislative wins prove elusive.

If we don’t start drawing firmer lines on executive authority—especially in areas where the Constitution is silent—we may find ourselves losing not just on policy, but on process.

That’s the fight we should be having now.