October Term 2002 · Docket 01-704
Can Congress block ATF from processing firearm disability relief?
The government claims annual funding bans stop ATF from acting on relief applications. the opposing side argues this denies his statutory right to judicial review.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Edwin Kneedler argued the government side. He stated annual appropriations acts prohibit the agency from acting on relief applications. He compared the relief power to the pardon power.
Mr. Goldstein argued the opposing side side. He stated section 925(c) grants individuals the right to apply for relief. He argued the statute secures judicial review if the Secretary denies the application.
Chief Justice Rehnquist closed the argument. He stated the case is submitted.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 32-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 32-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether annual appropriations bans override a statute granting firearm disability relief. The government says funding limits control agency action. the opposing side says the statute guarantees a hearing and court access.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 32-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 32-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 16, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to uphold the funding ban. It seeks to prevent the agency from processing the relief application.
the opposing side wants the Court to enforce the statutory right. He seeks a hearing and access to federal courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 32-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 32-43
What each side says
The government argues annual appropriations acts prohibit the agency from investigating or acting on these applications. It claims this funding restriction controls the agency's operations.
the opposing side argues section 925(c) grants a right to apply for relief. He claims the statute guarantees judicial review if the Secretary denies the application.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 32-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 32-43
What the justices asked
Does the annual appropriations ban override the statutory right to apply for relief?
Can the government deny judicial review based solely on a funding restriction?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary between legislative funding controls and statutory rights. It determines whether agencies can ignore statutory duties due to budget limits. It affects access to courts for individuals seeking disability relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 32-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 32-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 32-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 32-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 32-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 32-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.