Here is the ruling. "For the reasons stated in this Court’s June 11, 2024 Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 70), the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have succeeded on the merits of their claims, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, against the challenged Final Rule: Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms, 89 Fed. Reg. 28,968 (Apr. 19, 2024), codified at 27 C.F.R. § 478 (2026). The Final Rule is therefore VACATED. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (authorizing federal courts to “hold unlawful and Judgment as to its request for vacatur. However, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to injunctive relief. See Purl v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 787 F. Supp. 3d 284, 328 (N.D. Tex. 2025) (Kacsmaryk, J.) (noting that the “default rule is that vacatur is the appropriate remedy” for unlawful agency action and contrasting vacatur’s universal effect with injunctions, which “operate[] in personam” on government officials (first quoting Data Mktg. P’ship, LP v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 45 F.4th 846, 859 (5th Cir. 2022); then quoting Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. v. Becerra, 104 F.4th 930, 951 (5th Cir. 2024))). Because injunctive relief is redundant after vacatur,! and to avoid potential conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), the Court also now DISSOLVES the preliminary injunction entered in its June 11, 2024 Order. See ECF No.
70; CASA, 606 U.S. at 837, 847 n.10 (holding that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts” but noting that “[nJothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action”). Because APA vacatur is “not party-restricted,” Defendants may not apply the Final Rule to anyone—including individuals and organizations who are not parties to this case.
Career Colls. & Schs. of Tex. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 98 F.4th 220, 255 (5th Cir. 2024) (citing Griffin v. HM Fla.-ORL, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 1, 1 n.1 (Mem) (2023) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in denial of application for stay), cert. granted in part sub nom., Dep't of Educ. v. Career Colls. & Schs. of Tex., 145 S. Ct. 1039 (2025), and cert. dismissed sub nom., Dep't of Educ. v. Career Colls. & Schs. of Tex., 146 S. Ct. 59 (2025)); see also Griffin, 1448S. Ct. 1, 1n.1 (“The term ‘set aside’ means invalidation—and an invalid rule may not be applied to case judgments with respect to the parties in each case’ and vest courts with [the] ‘new and far-reaching’ remedial power” of universal vacatur (quoting Arizona v. Biden, 40 F.4th 375, 396 (6th Cir. 2022) (Sutton, C.J., concurring))). The Putative Intervenor States’ Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 97) is DENIED as moot.?”
