Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


United States v. Bean

Docket No.: 01-704
Certiorari Granted: Jan 22 2002
Argued: October 16, 2002
Decided: December 10, 2002


Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion, Judicial Power, Judicial Review, Administrative Procedure, Article I, EPA, First Amendment, abuse of discretion, capital murder, disparate treatment, habeas, habeas corpus, judicial review, jury selection, murder

PartyNames: United States, et al. v. Thomas Lamar Bean
Petitioner: United States, et al.
Respondent: Thomas Lamar Bean

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Citation: CA 5, 253 F.3d 234. QUESTION PRESENTED Under federal law, a person who is convicted of a felony is prohibited frompossessing firearms. The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), may grant relief from that prohibition if it isestablished to his satisfaction that certain preconditions are established. See 18 U.S.C. 925(c). Since 1992, however, every appropriations law for ATF has specified that ATF may not expend any appropriated funds to act upon applications for such relief. The question presented is whether, des pite that appropriations provision barring
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket

United States, et al.
Thomas Lamar Bean
537 U.S. 71 (2002)

Does a federal district court, despite appropriation provisions barring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from acting on applications for relief from firearms disabilities from persons convicted of a felony, have the authority to grant such relief?

United States v. Bean

October 16, 2002

Holding: reversed
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against

United States v. Bean
Case Documents

1Opinion in United States v. Bean
2Opinion in United States v. Bean
Additional documents for this case are pending review.