Franklin v. Massachusetts

505 U.S. 788 (1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

As a result of the 1990 census and reapportionment, P lost a seat in the House of Representatives. P brought this action against the President, D, Census Bureau officials, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, challenging the method used for counting federal employees serving overseas. D's allocation of 922,819 overseas military personnel to the State designated in their personnel files as their 'home of record' altered the relative state populations enough to shift a Representative from D to Washington. A three-judge panel held that the decision to allocate military personnel serving overseas to their 'homes of record' was arbitrary and capricious under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the automatic reapportionment statute, D takes the census 'in such form and content as she may determine.' D is permitted to delegate her authority for establishing census procedures to the Bureau of the Census. The 1970 census, taken during the Vietnam War, allocated members of the Armed Forces stationed overseas to their 'home of record,' using Defense Department personnel records. Because D found that military personnel were likely to designate a 'home of record' with low or no income taxes instead of their true home State -- even though home of record does not determine state taxation -- D did not allocate overseas employees to particular States in the 1980 census. D took the position that overseas federal employees would not be included in the 1990 state enumerations either. Then-Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher agreed to allocate overseas federal employees to their home States for purposes of congressional apportionment. Bills were introduced in Congress, but not passed. The President and D eventually decided to allocate the Department of Defense's overseas employees to the States based on their 'home of record.' P challenged the decision to allocate federal overseas employees, and the method used to do so, as inconsistent with the APA and with the constitutional requirement that the apportionment of Representatives be determined by an 'actual Enumeration' of persons 'in each State.' The court held for P and D appealed.