Franklin v. Massachusetts
505 U.S. 788 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President's transmittal of the reapportionment statement to Congress is the final action in the census process, and because the President is not an 'agency' under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), census-based reapportionment decisions are not reviewable for abuse of discretion under the APA. Furthermore, the Constitution's 'actual Enumeration' requirement is flexible enough to permit the inclusion of federal employees serving overseas, allocated to their 'home of record' states.
Facts:
- Following the 1990 decennial census, Massachusetts was set to lose one seat in the House of Representatives, while the state of Washington was set to gain one seat.
- This shift was a direct result of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to include federal employees serving overseas, including military personnel, in the state population counts used for congressional apportionment.
- The Census Bureau allocated overseas military personnel to the state designated as their 'home of record' in their official personnel files.
- The 'home of record' is the state a service member declares upon entering military service and determines where they will be relocated after their service is complete.
- The decision to use 'home of record' was made after other options, such as a direct survey of overseas personnel or using data on their last six months of U.S. residence, failed to materialize.
- The allocation of 922,819 overseas federal employees using this method was sufficient to alter the relative state populations and cause the shift of a congressional seat from Massachusetts to Washington.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and two of its registered voters sued the President, the Secretary of Commerce, and other federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The case was adjudicated by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court held that the Secretary's decision to allocate overseas military personnel to their 'homes of record' was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The District Court issued an injunction directing the Secretary to recalculate the census, the President to transmit a new apportionment statement, and the Clerk of the House to certify the new numbers to the states.
- The federal officials, as appellants, filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, with Massachusetts as the appellee.
- The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and stayed the District Court’s order pending its decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Secretary of Commerce's report of census data to the President considered 'final agency action' subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and does the allocation of overseas federal employees to their home states violate the Constitution's 'actual enumeration' requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. The Secretary of Commerce's report is not 'final agency action' subject to judicial review under the APA, and the allocation method does not violate the Constitution. The final action that has a direct legal effect on reapportionment is the President's transmittal of the apportionment statement to Congress, not the Secretary's report to the President. The Secretary's report is merely a tentative recommendation, as the President is not statutorily required to adopt it and could instruct the Secretary to make changes. Because the President is not an 'agency' within the meaning of the APA, his final action is not reviewable for abuse of discretion under that statute. Constitutionally, the concept of 'usual residence' has historically been interpreted broadly to include more than mere physical presence, allowing for an element of allegiance or an enduring tie to a place. The Secretary's decision to count overseas employees at their home states is consistent with this historical understanding and serves the constitutional goal of equal representation.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
The Secretary of Commerce's report is 'final agency action' subject to review under the APA. The majority errs in concluding the President has a substantive role; legislative history and statutory structure show the President's function is purely ministerial—to perform a standard mathematical calculation and transmit the results. The census report is a public, final document, and the President has no discretion to alter it. However, reviewing the Secretary's decision on the merits, it was not arbitrary or capricious, nor did it violate the Constitution. While the hoped-for data from a new Defense Department survey did not materialize, the decision to include overseas personnel was still supported by valid considerations and was a permissible exercise of the Secretary's discretion. Therefore, although the action is reviewable under the APA, Massachusetts should still lose because the Secretary's decision was reasonable.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No, as to the first part of the issue. The court should not reach the merits of the constitutional claim due to lack of standing. I agree with the majority that there is no cause of action under the APA because the President's action is final and he is not an 'agency.' However, the plaintiffs lack standing for their constitutional claim because their injury is not redressable by the courts. A court order against the Secretary of Commerce alone is insufficient, as the President is not a subordinate and has no legal duty to follow the Secretary's revised report. Furthermore, a court has no authority to issue an injunction directly against the President to compel the performance of his official, non-ministerial duties. Because the court cannot provide a remedy that redresses the alleged injury, the constitutional claim should be dismissed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits judicial oversight of the decennial census and congressional apportionment process. By defining the President's transmittal as the 'final action' and holding that the President is not an 'agency' under the APA, the Court insulates the executive's final apportionment decisions from review for being 'arbitrary and capricious.' This forces future litigants challenging census methodologies to rely on constitutional claims, which are generally harder to win. The ruling reinforces a strong view of executive authority and separation of powers, making it more difficult to challenge the technical and policy judgments integral to the politically sensitive apportionment process.
Unlock the full brief for Franklin v. Massachusetts