The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a First Amendment challenge to New Jersey's restrictions on distributing computer files used to 3D-print untraceable firearms. In *Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey* (3d Cir. 2026), the court held that appellants failed to adequately demonstrate their computer code deserved First Amendment protection.

Defense Distributed, a Texas-based company, develops and distributes what it calls "digital firearms information" - computer files that enable anyone with a 3D printer to manufacture functional, single-shot plastic pistols. These firearms have no serial numbers and cannot be traced by law enforcement, earning them the nickname "ghost guns." The Second Amendment Foundation, a non-profit membership organization, joined as a co-appellant.

The legal dispute arose after New Jersey's Attorney General and legislature enacted measures prohibiting the distribution of such files to state residents who are not registered or licensed as gun manufacturers. Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that these restrictions unconstitutionally burdened the distribution of Defense Distributed's computer code in violation of the First Amendment.

Circuit Judge Krause, writing for the three-judge panel that included Judges Scirica and Rendell, acknowledged the novel constitutional territory the case occupied. "When it comes to the regulation of firearms, the Second Amendment is the usual battleground," Judge Krause wrote. "But in this case, where the regulation relates to 3D-printing of ghost guns, the fray shifts into First Amendment territory and treads fresh ground on the constitutional protections afforded to computer code."

The central legal question centered on whether computer code used to manufacture firearms qualifies for First Amendment protection as a form of speech. The court recognized that some computer code does fall under First Amendment protections, but drew a crucial distinction. "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 held.

This distinction proves critical in cases involving computer code, as courts must determine whether the code serves primarily an expressive function or a purely functional one. Code that conveys ideas, artistic expression, or political messages may receive First Amendment protection, while code that merely performs mechanical or industrial functions typically does not.

The Third Circuit found that Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation failed to provide sufficient factual allegations in their complaint to allow the court to properly assess whether their computer code deserved constitutional protection. The court specifically noted that appellants "failed to plead sufficient factual matter to permit the Court to assess whether Defense Distributed's code is covered, let alone protected by, the First Amendment."

This pleading deficiency proved fatal to appellants' case. Without adequate factual allegations demonstrating the expressive nature of their code, the court could not determine whether the First Amendment applied to their situation. The ruling suggests that future cases involving computer code and free speech claims will require detailed factual development about the code's purpose, use, and expressive qualities.

The case reflects broader tensions between emerging technology and existing legal frameworks. 3D-printing technology has created new challenges for firearms regulation, as digital files can be easily distributed online and used to manufacture weapons that circumvent traditional regulatory mechanisms like serial numbers and background checks.

New Jersey's restrictions represent one state's attempt to address these challenges by regulating the distribution of the underlying digital files rather than just the manufactured weapons themselves. The state argued that restricting access to these files serves public safety interests by limiting the proliferation of untraceable firearms.

The Third Circuit's decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional questions about computer code and free speech protections. Instead, it establishes that parties seeking First Amendment protection for computer code must provide detailed factual allegations about the code's expressive qualities and intended use.

The ruling could influence similar cases across the country as other states grapple with regulating 3D-printed firearms. Courts will likely require detailed factual development about whether specific computer code serves expressive or purely functional purposes when evaluating First Amendment claims.

The case was originally filed in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Michael A. Shipp, who granted the state's motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit heard oral arguments on Nov. 4, 2024, before issuing its opinion on Feb. 12, 2026.

Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation have not indicated whether they plan to petition the Supreme Court for review. The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot refile the same claims without significant new factual allegations that might satisfy the court's requirements for establishing First Amendment coverage.