The ban on commercial pistol sales to 18-to-20-year-olds will likely go unenforced in parts of the country following a Trump Administration decision not to further pursue one case against it.

On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) quietly allowed a deadline to file an appeal with the Supreme Court in the case Reese v. ATF to pass. As a result, a unanimous January decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals–which covers Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana–will stand. The panel held that a combination of federal statutes banning licensed firearm dealers from selling pistols to young adults violates the Second Amendment.

Adam Kraut, executive director of the gun-rights organization the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), a party to the lawsuit, confirmed the move in a statement to The Reload.

“While it is unclear whether the government’s decision to decline seeking review at the Supreme Court marks a formal shift in its position on the issue, it is an encouraging development,” Kraut said. “We look forward to finalizing an injunction that will vindicate the rights of 18-20-year-old SAF members nationwide in this matter.”

The move marks the second time this year that the Trump administration has opted to allow a significant ruling against a federal gun restriction to become binding precedent rather than try to contest it at the Supreme Court. The administration previously allowed a Third Circuit ruling striking down the federal felon-in-possession ban as applied to a man who lied on a food stamp application 30 years ago to stand. Yet, while that decision had major ramifications for a particular defendant, refusing to contest the Fifth Circuit’s ruling stands to have a far more sweeping impact, as it essentially nullifies a federal gun law for the millions of young adults in the Fifth Circuit.

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment explaining what went into the decision. Previous filings in the case strongly suggest that the decision was at least in part influenced by President Trump’s executive order directing the DOJ to focus on “protecting Second Amendment rights.”

“The President has issued an Executive Order directing the Department of Justice to re-evaluate its litigation positions in certain Second Amendment cases,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a May request for an extension from the Supreme Court to consider an appeal. “The additional time sought in this application is needed to continue consultation within the government and to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals’ ruling.”

Legal experts who spoke with The Reload agreed that the administration’s policy shift likely played a role. Andrew Willinger, the executive director of Duke University’s Center for Firearms Law, said the move fit an emerging pattern at the DOJ.

“The decision to let Reese stand rather than seeking cert is consistent with the Trump DOJ’s broader strategy of not directly reversing position in ongoing litigation but rather allowing the cases to play out and then not asking SCOTUS to review major decisions invalidating gun restrictions,” Willinger said.

However, he noted that the handling of this case marked something of an escalation in that strategy.

“The Fifth Circuit’s decision is quite broad—it strikes down the under-21 FFL handgun purchase restriction in its entirety,” he said. “In Range, by contrast, DOJ characterized the Third Circuit’s ruling invalidating 922(g)(1) in certain applications as ‘narrow’ in explaining the decision to not seek cert.”

While state age limits vary, federal law generally allows 18-to-20-year-olds to possess rifles and shotguns and purchase them from federally licensed retail gun dealers. However, those same young adults can’t buy pistols from those same dealers. The federal Gun Control Act (GCA) and subsequent ATF regulations collectively require that individuals be at least 21 years old to purchase handguns from a commercial seller.

A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel, made up of three Republican appointees, determined that this carve-out for handgun sales lacked any basis in the country’s “historic tradition of firearm regulation.” It therefore concluded the practice is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment test developed by the Supreme Court in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected,” Judge Edith Jones wrote. “The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence ‘cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.’”

That holding now binds judges in the Fifth Circuit, which could impact future cases dealing with gun laws for 18-to 20-year-olds.

Meanwhile, a separate appellate court has arrived at the opposite conclusion, making it likely that the issue isn’t settled for good. A three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last month upheld the very same federal restrictions on handgun sales for adults younger than 21, creating a circuit split on the question.

“Because § 922(b)(1) is ‘relevantly similar’ to founding-era restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms, we are satisfied that the Second Amendment permits the law’s burden on an 18-to-20-year-old’s right to purchase a handgun.” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote in McCoy v. ATF.

Kraut, whose group is also involved in the Fourth Circuit challenge, told The Reload that SAF would soon be appealing the issue to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, lawsuits dealing with similar state restrictions have continued to pile up at the justice’s doorstep. The NRA has requested Supreme Court review of an Eleventh Circuit decision upholding Florida’s ban on all gun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds. Likewise, Pennsylvania officials this week asked the High Court to overturn a Third Circuit decision striking down the state’s practice of denying 18-to-20-year-olds gun-carry rights during declared states of emergency. Those appeals are still pending.

Willinger said he anticipates seeing those cases, or similar state challenges, before the justices in the near future–potentially even with the DOJ’s support.

“My best guess is that, as a matter of optics, the Trump administration would prefer to see the age issue litigated at the Supreme Court in a challenge to a state restriction, rather than a federal one,” he said. “I don’t think SCOTUS can avoid taking up the issue for long.”