Schilling v. Rogers - 363 U.S. 666 (1960)


U.S. Supreme Court

Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666 (1960)

Schilling v. Rogers

No. 319

Argued February 29-March 1, 1960

Decided June 20, 1960

363 U.S. 666

Syllabus

Petitioner, an alien, brought this action in a Federal District Court to obtain judicial review of an administrative determination by the Director, Office of Alien Property, sanctioned by the Attorney General, that petitioner was not eligible under § 32(a)(2)(D) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, for the return of property vested by the Alien Property Custodian in which petitioner claimed to have an interest.

Held: judicial review of that administrative determination was precluded by § 7 (c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which provides that,

"The sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any money or other property heretofore or hereafter . . . transferred . . . to the Alien Property Custodian . . . shall be that provided by the terms of this Act,"

since that Act cannot be construed to provide a judicial remedy for a person such as petitioner. Pp. 363 U. S. 667-677.

(a) Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act does not entitle petitioner to judicial review of this administrative determination, both because the matter involved is "committed to agency discretion" by § 32(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act and because judicial review is precluded by § 7(c) of that Act. Pp. 363 U. S. 670-676.

(b) A different conclusion is not required on the theory that, by moving to dismiss petitioner's action, respondent admitted petitioner's allegation that the administrative action was arbitrary and capricious. Pp. 363 U. S. 676-677.

(c) The Declaratory Judgment Act does not entitle petitioner to judicial review, because relief thereunder is precluded by § 7(c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. P. 363 U. S. 677.

106 U.S.App.D.C. 8, 268 F. 2d 584, affirmed.

Page 363 U. S. 667



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.