This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to United States (Petitioner), according to United States (Petitioner), according to United States (Petitioner), congress annually prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) from investigating or acting on applications for discretionary relief from firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).
According to United States, the Government argued that there was no jurisdiction but nevertheless participated on the factual side of the case.
According to Mr. Goldstein, the Government’s preferred outcome was a judgment remanding the matter to the Secretary.
According to Mr. Kneedler, the argument included the principle that when Congress prohibits an agency from spending funds, it does not expect money to be drawn from another source.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice, the Court asked whether the client had sought to proceed before the Secretary.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to United States (Petitioner), according to United States (Petitioner), according to United States (Petitioner), congress annually prohibits the BATF from investigating or acting on applications for discretionary relief from firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).
According to United States, the Government argued that there was no jurisdiction but nevertheless participated on the factual side of the case.
According to Mr. Goldstein, the Government’s preferred outcome was a judgment remanding the matter to the Secretary.
Thomas Lamar Bean (Respondent)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked whether the Government was suggesting that the Secretary had denied the application in writing.
A Justice asked whether the client had sought to proceed before the Secretary.
According to Justice, a Justice remarked that otherwise Congress could not work.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist thanked Mr. Kneedler and noted that the case was submitted.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- fcd28a422d0b8de1031e-r1-7331b4fdf4753cd4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.