## Facts

- Following the 1990 decennial census, the Secretary of Commerce directed that certain overseas federal employees, largely military personnel, be allocated to particular States for apportionment based on their “home of record.”
- Massachusetts and two registered voters alleged the allocation reduced Massachusetts’s population count for apportionment purposes, costing it one House seat while benefitting another State.
- Plaintiffs sued the Secretary of Commerce and the President, asserting statutory claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional claims under the Census Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s apportionment provisions.
- A three-judge district court held the allocation decision “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA, ordered the Secretary to exclude the overseas personnel from the apportionment count, and ordered the President to transmit a revised apportionment to Congress.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary’s apportionment-related census tabulation and report constitute “final agency action” reviewable under the APA.
2. Whether the President is an “agency” whose apportionment-related actions are reviewable under the APA.
3. Whether allocating overseas federal employees to States by “home of record” violates the constitutional requirement of an “actual Enumeration” of persons “in each State” for congressional apportionment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment.
- The Secretary’s report to the President was not “final agency action” because the apportionment’s legally operative step is the President’s statement to Congress.
- The President is not an “agency” under the APA, so the APA does not authorize review of the President’s apportionment-related actions.
- Counting overseas federal employees in State totals based on “home of record” did not violate the Constitution’s apportionment requirements.

## Legal Principles

- “Final agency action” under the APA requires a decision that marks the consummation of an agency process and has direct legal consequences for the parties; preparatory steps that lack legal effect are not reviewable.
- The President is not an “agency” within the meaning of the APA’s definitional provisions; absent express statutory authorization, the APA’s judicial-review provisions do not reach presidential action.
- In the census and apportionment context, Congress and the Executive have broad discretion in selecting reasonable counting and allocation methods consistent with the constitutional requirement of an “actual Enumeration” for apportionment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the APA did not permit the district court to review and enjoin the apportionment process because the Secretary’s tabulation was not final agency action and the President’s transmission to Congress was not reviewable under the APA, and it further held that allocating overseas federal employees to States by home-of-record for apportionment was constitutionally permissible.


Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992)