A federal judge in Seattle has ruled against Defense Distributed, imposing a preliminary injunction requiring the company to keep its 3D-printed gun files offline for now.

US District Judge Robert Lasnik found in his Monday ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed based on their argument that the Department of State, in allowing for a modification of federal export law, had unwittingly run afoul of a different law, the Administrative Procedure Act.

In essence, the judge found that because the Department of State did not formally notify Congress when it modified the United States Munitions List, the previous legal settlement that Defense Distributed struck with the Department of State—which allowed publication of the files—is invalid.

As Ars has reported, Defense Distributed is the Texas-based company involved in a years-long lawsuit with the Department of State over publication of those files and making them available to foreigners. The company runs DEFCAD, perhaps the best-known online repository of gun files.

After a surprising June 2018 settlement with the Department of Justice seemingly ended that five-year legal battle with the Department of State, DEFCAD reposted the files on July 27, a few days earlier than the company had initially said it would restore them.

With the settlement, the feds essentially agreed to change the relevant export laws. Defense Distributed would be allowed to publish, the DOJ would pay $40,000 of DD's legal fees, and the case would be over. The Second Amendment Foundation announced the settlement on July 10.

Judge Lasnik's ruling today only briefly addressed the fact that the files are already available on numerous sites, including Github, The Pirate Bay, and more. These files have circulated online since their original publication back in 2013. (Recently, new mirrors of the files have begun to pop up.)

"It is not clear how available the nine files are: the possibility that a cybernaut with a BitTorrent protocol will be able to find a file in the dark or remote recesses of the Internet does not make the posting to Defense Distributed’s site harmless," he wrote.

Defense Distributed's founder, Cody Wilson, declined Ars' request for comment.

Item vs. category

Specifically, the judge continued, there is a question as to whether the Department of State removed an "item" or a "category" from the Munitions List.

The government argues that because it removed a category ("firearms up to .50 caliber") that this is not the same as removing an "item" from the mutations list, and therefore Congress was not required to be notified.

But the judge was not convinced.

"The congressional review and notice requirements specifically apply to items, not categories of items," he wrote, citing the particular federal law. "The Department's [commodity jurisdiction] regulation further confirms that it is the removal of a particular article or service—ie, an item rather than a category—that triggers the review and notice requirements. The Department describes the CJ procedure as a means of resolving doubts 'as to whether an article or service is covered by the US Munitions List' and to seek 'redesignation of an article or service currently covered by the US Munitions List.'"

Further, Judge Lasnik ruled, "there is no indication" that the Department of State "evaluated the unique characteristics and qualities of plastic guns" when it considered making this change.

"Nor is there any reasoned explanation for its change in position regarding the harms that publication of the regulated technical data will engender," he continued. "The State Department also appears to have evaluated the export controls on small caliber firearms only through the prism of whether restricting foreign access would provide the United States with a military or intelligence advantage. Congress, however, directed the Department to consider how the proliferation of technical data and related weaponry would impact world peace, national security, and foreign policy."

He concluded that the State Department, here, "engaged in arbitrary and capricious agency action."

The judge also did not step into the possibly thorny question as to whether Defense Distributed had a First Amendment claim to publish these files. He noted, after all, that the files can be "emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States" right now.

In a footnote, Judge Lasnik also pointed out that the president—who has tweeted in apparent disagreement with the proliferation of plastic firearms—has the power to "influence, if not outright direct, the State Department's decision-making in this matter. He has not yet done so."

The case will now go forward. No further hearings have been scheduled for now.

Defense Distributed can appeal the judge's ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.