Franklin v. Massachusetts

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Administrative Law

505 U.S. 788 (1992)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawpresidential actionfinal agency actionAPAPresident not an agencyreapportionmentcensususual residence

Facts

After the 1990 census, Massachusetts lost a House seat, and the allocation of 922,819 overseas military personnel to their listed home States shifted a Representative from Massachusetts to Washington. The Secretary of Commerce decided to include overseas federal employees in state population counts and, for military personnel, generally used "home of record" data because it was thought to resemble the Census Bureau's usual-residence measure more closely than legal residence or last duty station. Massachusetts challenged both the inclusion of overseas employees and the use of home-of-record data. The District Court rejected the constitutional claim in principle but held the Secretary's decision arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

Issue

Whether the Secretary's census report was reviewable as final agency action under the APA, and if not, whether the inclusion of overseas federal employees in state population counts for apportionment violated the Constitution. A further threshold question was whether appellees had standing to press the constitutional challenge.

Rule

The APA authorizes review only of final agency action. An action is final when the agency has completed its decisionmaking process and the result directly affects the parties; a tentative recommendation or subordinate ruling is not final. Where the final action affecting reapportionment is the President's statement to Congress, APA review is unavailable because the President is not an "agency" under the APA. Constitutionally, the Census Bureau may use a broad concept of usual residence, not limited to mere physical presence, so long as its interpretation is consistent with the constitutional text and the goal of equal representation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Secretary of Housing compiles state population totals that will be used to distribute a fixed number of federal redevelopment grants. By statute, the Secretary must send the totals to the President, who then transmits the binding state allocations to Congress, and only that transmittal gives any State an entitlement to a specific number of grants. Before the President acts, Nevada files an APA suit challenging the Secretary's counting methodology.

Is the Secretary's submission most likely reviewable under the APA as final agency action?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, APA review extends only to final agency action. Finality turns on whether the agency has completed its process and whether the result directly affects the parties. Where a statute makes the President's later statement the act that creates a State's entitlement, the Secretary's earlier report is not final because it carries no direct consequences and functions like a tentative recommendation.