Third Circuit Rules 3D-Printed Gun Files Are Not Protected Speech
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit delivered a significant ruling on February 12, 2026, in the long-running legal battle over digital files for 3D-printed firearms, affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation against New Jersey’s Attorney General.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, the court upheld the District Court of New Jersey’s decision to dismiss with prejudice all constitutional challenges to a state law that criminalizes the distribution of certain digital instructions or code that can be used to 3D-print firearms to unlicensed individuals. The case, Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, represents a setback for advocates who argue that such files constitute protected speech under the First Amendment and that restrictions on the manufacture of arms for self-defense infringe on Second Amendment rights.
Defense Distributed, a Texas-based organization founded by Cody Wilson, has pioneered the dissemination of “digital firearms information” (DFI), including computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) files. These files allow individuals with access to a 3D printer to produce functional firearm components, such as the single-shot “Liberator” pistol or AR-15 lower receivers often described by anti-gun groups and politicians as “ghost guns.” The company and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), a gun-rights nonprofit, contended that New Jersey’s statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-9(l)(2), unconstitutionally restricts their ability to share these files online or otherwise.
The law, enacted in 2018 amid growing concerns over unregulated 3D-printed firearms, prohibits the manufacture or distribution of digital instructions, templates, or computer code “that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer” to produce firearms or firearm components, when provided to individuals without the appropriate federal firearms license. Violators face criminal penalties.
The dispute traces back to 2018, when New Jersey’s Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist letter to Defense Distributed, citing public nuisance and negligence laws after the company began widely publishing printable gun files. Defense Distributed initially complied with the distribution limitations, but later resumed sharing with geographic restrictions and license checks. The plaintiffs filed suit in federal court in New Jersey, alleging violations of the First Amendment (free speech and prior restraint), the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms, including self-manufacture), and the Due Process Clause (vagueness).
A complex procedural history followed, involving attempts to litigate in Texas (Defense Distributed’s home state) and multiple transfers between districts. The Fifth Circuit had previously intervened in related proceedings, criticizing the transfer of claims involving the New Jersey Attorney General as potentially abusive. However, the Third Circuit panel consisting of Judges Krause, Anthony J. Scirica, and Marjorie O. Rendell found no error in the New Jersey district court’s refusal to retransfer the case back to Texas under the doctrines of law-of-the-case, comity, or the convenience factors of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court emphasized that local interest in enforcing New Jersey law weighed heavily, and prior Fifth Circuit rulings on severed claims did not bind the New Jersey proceedings.
On the merits, the Third Circuit first addressed standing for the Second Amendment claim. The panel concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury. While the statute restricts distribution, the complaint did not claim that any plaintiff had been prevented from personally manufacturing a firearm using 3D printing technology. “The burden on file-sharing does not equate to an injury in exercising the right personally,” the opinion reasoned. Without evidence of attempted but thwarted self-manufacture, the court held there was no Article III standing.
The court next rejected the Due Process vagueness challenge. Plaintiffs argued that the phrase “may be used” rendered the statute impermissibly vague, potentially criminalizing innocuous files or inviting arbitrary enforcement. The panel disagreed, finding the law provides fair notice by targeting files specifically designed or capable of programming a 3D printer to produce firearms. It noted that many criminal statutes involve some degree of ambiguity in their application, but this one provides sufficient guidelines and safeguards for prosecutorial discretion.
The heart of the case and the most closely watched aspect was the First Amendment claim. Plaintiffs insisted that their CAD/CAM files and related digital information constitute expressive speech, akin to source code in earlier circuit precedents (such as cases from the Ninth and Sixth Circuits treating certain code as protected expression). They argued the statute imposed a content-based restriction and prior restraint on speech.
Judge Krause’s opinion pushed back against a blanket presumption that computer code is speech. “But while it is certainly true that some computer code falls under the purview of the First Amendment, purely functional code with no actual or intended expressive use does not,” the court stated. Protection depends on a fact-specific inquiry into whether the code serves an expressive purpose or communicates ideas to humans, rather than functioning purely as instructions to a machine. The panel distinguished earlier cases, noting that functional code, such as computer viruses or ransomware, is not subject to First Amendment protection.
Critically, the court found the complaint deficient in pleading facts to support an expressive-speech theory. Plaintiffs offered only conclusory assertions that their files express technical, scientific, artistic, or political ideas, without identifying specific regulated files, describing their format or content, or explaining how they convey meaning beyond machine functionality. Without such details, the court could not assess whether the files qualify as protected expression or whether the statute burdens speech in a way that triggers heightened scrutiny.
As a result, the First Amendment claim failed to survive a motion to dismiss. The district court granted leave to amend, but the plaintiffs elected to stand on their original pleadings, resulting in dismissal with prejudice.
The ruling aligns New Jersey’s approach with efforts in other states to regulate “ghost gun” proliferation. Anti-gun groups, including Amici Everytown for Gun Safety, praised the decision as preserving states’ “ability to address public safety threats from untraceable weapons.” Gun-rights advocates, however, described it as another erosion of digital freedoms and the right to arms in an era of advancing technology.
Defense Distributed has not yet indicated whether it will seek en banc review or file for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. As 3D printing becomes more accessible, similar challenges are likely to recur in other jurisdictions, potentially setting the stage for further appellate or Supreme Court clarification on when digital instructions cross from speech to regulable conduct.
TX: Defense Distributed Blocked from Selling CNC Machine in CA Amid 2nd Amendment Showdown ~ VIDEO
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
