Document: 537 U.S. 71 UNITED STATES ET AL.v.BEAN. No. 01-704. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 16, 2002. Decided December 10, Because respondent's felony conviction, he was prohibited by 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1) from possessing, distributing, or receiving firearms ammunition. Relying on 925(c), applied to the Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for relief his disabilities. ATF returned application unprocessed, explaining that its annual appropriations law forbade it expending any funds investigate act upon such applications. Invoking 925(c)'s judicial review provision, filed suit, asking District conduct own inquiry into fitness possess a gun issue order granting relief. The court granted requested relief, Fifth Circuit affirmed. Held: absence an actual denial felon's petition precludes under 925(c). Secretary Treasury is authorized grant disability if certain preconditions are met, applicant may seek federal-court denies application. Ibid. Since 1992, however, bar has prevented ATF, which delegated this authority, using appropriated Section text procedure lays out seeking make clear decision prerequisite review, mere inaction does not invest district with independent jurisdiction. Grammatically, phrase "denied Secretary" references Secretary's whether "will be likely in manner dangerous public safety," "the would contrary interest." Such determination can hardly construed as anything but actually denying Under those Secretary, i. e., broad authority deny even when statutory prerequisites satisfied. This shows cannot occur without dispositive ATF. First, statutorily defined standard action Administrative Procedure Act (APA) supplies applicable standard. 5 §§ 701(a), 706(2)(A). APA's "arbitrary capricious" test, nature, contemplates some another entity. Second, both parts relief—whether "likely safety" "public interest" — policy-based determinations and, hence, point primary decisionmaker. Third, 925(c) allows admission additional evidence proceedings only exceptional circumstances. Congressional assignment circumscribed role statute court's will heavily rely record ATF's decision. Indeed, very use word "review" describe responsibility scheme signifies own, absent antecedent Pp. 74-78. 253 F. 3d 234, reversed. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued cause petitioners. With him briefs were Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Irving L. Gornstein, Mark B. Stern, Thomas M. Bondy. Goldstein respondent. brief Larry Hunter Amy Howe.* JUSTICE THOMAS 1 We consider case whether, despite appropriation provisions barring acting applications disabilities persons convicted felony, federal 2 * After attending show Laredo, Texas, respondent, Lamar Bean, dealer, associates drove vehicle Nuevo Mexico, dinner. Bean v. Tobacco Firearms, 236 (CA5 2001). When Mexican officials stopped at border, they found back, plain view, approximately 200 rounds According had instructed remove ammunition vehicle, inexplicably one box remained. Respondent importing Mexico sentenced five years' imprisonment. 3 respondent respondent's. 4 then suit States Eastern Texas. provision asked gun, attached various affidavits attesting firearms. conducting hearing, entered judgment Appeals affirmed, concluding congressional refusal provide funding reviewing "is requisite direct definite suspension repeal subject rights." 3d, 239. proceeded hold jurisdiction (in)action. certiorari. 534 1112 (2002). II law, person who possessing See 922(g)(1). prohibition established satisfaction met. 925(c).1 An "United court" denied Secretary." 6 applications,2 "funds herein . Federal [§]925(c)." Treasury, Postal Service, Government Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. 102-393, 106 Stat. 1732.3 Accordingly, receipt petition, it, "[s]ince disabilities." App. 33-34. contends failure constitutes "denial" within meaning that, therefore, courts have inaction. 7 disagree. Inaction amount 8 application.4 And, fact, contend passed application, rather claims "refusal literal, least constructive, because precisely same impact [the applicant] merits." Brief 35 (internal quotation marks citations omitted). 9 also leads us conclude adverse review. requires applicant, first step, establish eligible discretion, request based considerations outlined above. Only then, court. 10 satisfied, APA 701(a). APA, usually limited determining agency "arbitrary, capricious, abuse otherwise accordance law." Application here indicates predicated decision: test nature entity, than initial itself. 11 Whether presupposes applicant's background—a function best performed Executive, which, unlike courts, institutionally equipped neutral, wide-ranging investigation. Similarly, calls inherently left hands agency. 12 contemplated (allowing, "in [district court's] discretion," where "failure do so result miscarriage justice"). made 13 we therefore reverse Appeals. 14 It ordered. Notes: Craig Goldblatt Mathew Nosanchuk Violence Policy Center amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs amici affirmance Law Enforcement Alliance America, Inc., Richard E. Gardiner; Second Amendment Foundation William Gustavson. Title provides: "A shipping, transporting, imposed laws respect acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, possession firearms, circumstances regarding disability, reputation, safety interest. Any whose file resides denial. discretion admit justice. A licensed importer, manufacturer, collector operations chapter, makes incurred shall barred further license pending final pursuant section. Whenever grants section promptly publish Register notice action, together reasons therefor." did eliminate power In support, notes refers That claim, waived, raised time merits Even considered merits, argument faces several difficulties. appears exclusive petitions brought see 27 CFR 178.144(b) (d) (2002); delegation unreasonable. assuming retained petitions, prevail 706(1) (providing "compel unlawfully withheld unreasonably delayed"). Not explicit terms statute, infra, 76-78, withholding inform exercise discretion. each subsequent year, Congress process individuals. 2002, 107-67, 115 519; Consolidated 2001, 106-554, 114 2763A-129; 2000, 106-58, 113 434; 1999, 105-277, 112 2681-485; 1998, 105-61, 111 1277; 1997, 104-208, 110 3009-319; 1996, 104-52, 109 471; Service 1995, 103-329, 108 2385; 1994, 103-123, 107 1228 Also counseling against construing purposes §925(c) fact while draws distinction between act," 551(13), obtain denied. 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutes Statutory Construction 46:06, p. 194 (6th ed. 2000) ("The different related statutes generally implies meanings intended")

Category: 8