Franklin v. Massachusetts

1992-06-26

Headline: Court bars APA review of the President’s reapportionment step and affirms counting overseas federal employees by home-of-record, reversing a lower court that had removed those troops and shifted a House seat.

Holding: The Court held that the President's apportionment statement, not the Commerce Secretary's report, is the final action outside the APA, and that including overseas federal employees by home-of-record does not violate the Constitution.

Real World Impact:

Prevents APA review of presidential apportionment decisions.
Affirms counting overseas military by home-of-record for state population totals.
Preserves 1990 reapportionment results, keeping Massachusetts’ lost seat intact.

Topics: census counting, congressional apportionment, military overseas personnel, judicial review limits, presidential power

Summary

Background

A state, Massachusetts, and two of its voters sued the President, the Commerce Secretary, Census officials, and the House Clerk after the 1990 census. The dispute arose because the Census Bureau and Commerce Secretary allocated 922,819 overseas federal employees, mostly military, to the states listed as their "home of record" in personnel files. That allocation changed relative state populations and cost Massachusetts a congressional seat. A federal district court found the Secretary's choice arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act and ordered the overseas employees removed and the apportionment recalculated.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Secretary's report was reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act and whether the Constitution required a different count. The Court held the Secretary's report to the President was not a "final agency action" because the apportionment is fixed only when the President transmits his statement to Congress, and the President is not an "agency" under the APA. Therefore the APA did not permit review of the Secretary's action. On the constitutional claim, the Court found counting overseas personnel by home-of-record fits within the long-standing idea of "usual residence" and did not violate the constitutional goal of equal representation. The Court reversed the lower court.

Real world impact

The ruling preserves the 1990 reapportionment results and keeps the Census Bureau’s method of assigning many overseas federal workers to their home states. It limits the ability of states or citizens to overturn apportionment decisions through the APA because the President’s final transmittal falls outside that statute. The decision does not foreclose constitutional challenges but narrows administrative-law routes to change reapportionment.

Dissents or concurrances

Separate opinions help explain the split: Justice Stevens would treat the Secretary's report as final agency action but nonetheless found the Secretary’s choice lawful; Justice Scalia stressed redress problems and warned courts cannot command the President to act. These views clarify tensions over judicial review and separation of powers.