SCOTUS Just Made New Jersey Answer Defense Distributed
Docket No. 26-184: Defense Distributed, et al. v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey. Linked with 25A1468. The Third Circuit is the court below, No. 23-3058. New Jersey waived a response on September 18. The Court distributed the petition for the October 9 conference, then on September 24 ordered: Response Requested, due October 26, 2026. Petitioners: Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation. This is not a cert grant. It is the Court telling the state it does not get to sit this one out.
- SCOTUS No. 26-184, Defense Distributed v. Davenport (N.J. AG). Linked 25A1468. Third Circuit 23-3058. Response requested Sept. 24, 2026; due Oct. 26.
- Davenport waived Sept. 18. Petition had been distributed for the Oct. 9 conference. A response order resets that.
- Issues as reported by Bearing Arms (Edwards, Sept. 25): Fifth/Third venue split; whether pure CAD/code is First Amendment speech. Third Circuit: pure code not expressive.
- Petitioners: Defense Distributed and SAF. Counsel of record: Charles Randall Flores. Not a cert grant. Not a ruling on the files.
- New Jersey’s law reaches digital firearm instructions accessible to a New Jersey resident regardless of where the server sits.
The Supreme Court docket for No. 26-184 lists the caption: Defense Distributed, et al., Petitioners v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey. Docketed August 12, 2026. Linked with application 25A1468. Lower court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 23-3058. Decision date February 12, 2026. Rehearing denied April 10, 2026. Justice Alito had already stretched the cert deadline to August 8. The petition was filed August 10. Response was originally due September 11. On September 18, 2026, Davenport filed a waiver of the right to respond. On September 23 the Clerk distributed the petition for the Conference of October 9, 2026. On September 24: “Response Requested. (Due October 26, 2026).” Counsel of record for petitioners: Charles Randall Flores, Flores Law PLLC, Houston. For the state: Tim Sheehan, Office of the New Jersey Attorney General.
Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms, September 25, filled in the questions the petition actually presents. One is venue: the case started in Texas, moved to New Jersey, and the Fifth and Third Circuits split over whether it goes back. The other is the First Amendment line: whether “the First Amendment covers communicative computer code without more, or only upon additional indicia of expressiveness.” New Jersey’s statute hits CAD files and other digital instructions that can program a 3-D printer to make a firearm, receiver, magazine, or component — including when the server sits in another state. Edwards: the Third Circuit held that pure code is not protected speech because it is not expressive. A response order is not a grant. It is how the Court keeps a petition alive after a waiver. It takes one justice to demand the brief. Four to grant. October 26 is the state’s date. The October 9 conference is no longer the dump date for this one.
This is not Heller. It is not Bruen. It is whether a Garden State download law can criminalize a file hosted in Texas. The docket now has a response date. That is the news.
"New Jersey waived. The Court said answer by October 26. That is how a code-is-speech petition stays alive."← More Stories
Comments
Share your take. Name is public; state is optional. Be civil — spam is removed.
Loading comments…