A court just drew a line on “ghost gun” code — and said the First Amendment doesn’t automatically cover it

PHILADELPHIA — A federal appeals court ruled that computer code isn’t automatically protected speech under the First Amendment, siding with New Jersey in a case tied to so-called “ghost guns” and the distribution of code used to make firearms.

The decision came from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Defense Distributed — a Texas-based company known for making and sharing code related to 3D-printed guns — and the Second Amendment Foundation. The lawsuit was aimed at blocking enforcement tied to a New Jersey crackdown on distributing 3D gun code without a license.

Here’s what matters: the court didn’t declare that no code can be speech. It said the First Amendment question depends on whether the code at issue has “expressive content,” and that you can’t win a constitutional case without showing the court what you’re actually talking about. Reuters reported the judges said the plaintiffs didn’t provide enough detail for the court to evaluate whether the code they wanted to share qualified as protected expression.

That procedural failure was huge. Reuters reported the court pointed out that the plaintiffs chose not to amend their complaint to add specifics. In other words, the case didn’t collapse because the judges loved censorship — it collapsed because the plaintiffs didn’t give the court the facts needed to apply the legal test they were demanding.

New Jersey officials framed the ruling as a win for public safety. Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport praised the decision. Defense Distributed and its allies said they were evaluating next steps, warning about broader implications for digital speech.

Why this is blowing up: the case sits at the intersection of three things Americans argue about nonstop — guns, tech, and free speech. “Ghost gun” debates tend to spike because the weapons can be made without serial numbers, and code distribution makes enforcement harder. At the same time, the moment courts start describing limits on what counts as “speech,” people get jumpy, especially in an era where so much communication is software.

This ruling won’t end the bigger fight. It does, however, strengthen an argument states have been pushing: regulating the functional distribution of weapons-making tools isn’t the same as regulating a political opinion. And it sends a signal to future plaintiffs: if you want courts to treat your code as speech, you’ll likely have to show your work.