A major gun-rights organization is asking the Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey can criminalize the online publication of 3D-printer files for firearms, a case that pits free speech against one state's sweeping ban on digital gun blueprints.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed a petition for certiorari on August 11 in Defense Distributed v. Davenport, challenging a New Jersey criminal statute that makes it illegal to distribute computer-aided design files or other digital code that can instruct a 3D printer to produce a firearm, receiver, magazine, or firearm component. The petition names Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport as the respondent. SAF's senior litigation director, William Sack, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the core argument is straightforward: the files are protected speech under the First Amendment, no different from a printed book with diagrams and a build sheet.

New Jersey passed the statute in November 2018. SAF's petition tells the Court that the law was aimed at one organization in particular, Defense Distributed, the Texas-based company that created files allowing individuals with 3D printers to manufacture firearms at home for personal use. And the petition lays out the receipts from the bill-signing ceremony itself.

New Jersey's governor and attorney general named their target by name

SAF's cert petition quotes directly from the law's signing ceremony. At that event, then-Governor Phil Murphy tied the new statute to the attorney general's earlier enforcement action against Defense Distributed. Then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal went further, identifying Cody Wilson and his supporters by name.

The petition states:

"New Jersey enacted the statute to stop Defense Distributed in particular. At the signing ceremony, the Governor [Phil Murphy] linked the law to the Attorney General's earlier action against Defense Distributed, and the Attorney General identified Cody Wilson and his supporters, said they were 'still trying to release these codes online,' announced stronger tools 'to stop them,' and warned, 'we will come after you.'"

That language matters. When a state's top law-enforcement officer names a specific citizen and promises to "come after" him, the law starts to look less like neutral regulation and more like targeted suppression. SAF is asking the justices to treat it accordingly.

Sack framed the First Amendment question in terms any reader can follow. He told the DCNF:

"You can also publish a book on how to build a gun, right? And that's not even in question, right? So you can post, you can publish a book, here's how to build a gun with diagrams and instructions and a build sheet, no one's questioning that."

He added: "Our perspective is that does not change at all if what you're publishing is computer files."

The distinction New Jersey draws, legal if you print instructions on paper, criminal if you post the same information as a digital file, is the kind of arbitrary line that invites constitutional scrutiny. A book of gun-building diagrams sits on Amazon without controversy. The same information rendered as a CAD file carries criminal penalties under New Jersey law. SAF wants the Supreme Court to explain why the medium should make the difference.

Two federal appeals courts fought over the case, and one refused to let go

Beyond the First Amendment question, the petition raises a second issue that the justices may find hard to ignore: a jurisdictional standoff between two federal appeals courts. The case originated with a federal district court ruling in Texas. After that ruling, the case was transferred to New Jersey, where a three-judge panel on the Third Circuit upheld the state's ban.

The Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, then overturned the lower court's ruling and directed that the case be returned. The Third Circuit refused.

Sack described the situation bluntly:

"The Fifth Circuit and the Third Circuit kind of got into a spat. The case bounced back and forth between them, and then essentially a dispute arose between them as to who rightfully had the case, and so we have filed a cert petition on both really the core First Amendment question, but also this other question because it raised an important and important kind of federal courts question as to whether, essentially what our position is that the Third Circuit kind of snatched this thing back against the Fifth Circuit's will."

When two federal circuits issue conflicting orders and one refuses to comply with the other, the Supreme Court is typically the only institution that can settle the matter. That procedural mess alone could give the justices reason to take the case, even apart from the free-speech question.

The Supreme Court's current term has already drawn attention for its willingness to engage major Second Amendment disputes. The justices recently accepted two assault weapons ban cases that could reshape firearms law nationwide.

And the Court agreed to hear a challenge to AR-15 bans, setting up what many observers expect to be a landmark Second Amendment showdown. If the justices grant certiorari in Defense Distributed v. Davenport, the case would add a First Amendment dimension to an already packed firearms docket.

New Jersey's attorney general has not responded

Current Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, the named respondent, did not immediately respond to the DCNF's request for comment. Her office's silence leaves open the question of how the state plans to defend a statute whose own signing ceremony featured the attorney general promising to target a specific individual.

The broader pattern is familiar. State officials pass laws with sweeping language, then enforce them selectively against disfavored speakers. Courts have grown increasingly skeptical of that approach, particularly when the legislative record shows the kind of targeted animus SAF alleges here. Federal courts have recently sided with individuals and organizations challenging government overreach in cases ranging from DOJ enforcement actions against pro-life activists to disputes over judicial conscience protections.

New Jersey's statute, codified at N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-9, criminalizes the distribution of "digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format as a digital model that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver, magazine, or firearm component." The language is broad enough to potentially cover anyone who shares such a file online, regardless of intent.

SAF announced the filing on its official X account on August 11, writing: "SAF is once again knocking on the Supreme Court's front door, this time about 3D printer files related to guns." The organization linked to the full petition, which is publicly available on SAF's website.

The case now sits with the Supreme Court, which has not yet acted on the petition. Consequential court decisions continue to shape the legal landscape on issues from voting policy to religious liberty, and the justices' choice on whether to hear Defense Distributed v. Davenport will signal how far they are willing to extend constitutional protections into the digital age.

If a state can criminalize a computer file while leaving the identical information legal in a paperback, the First Amendment has a format problem. The Supreme Court is the only institution positioned to fix it.