Supreme Court of the United States

Schilling v. Rogers

June 20, 1960363 U.S. 666

Summary

Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Schilling's claim for return of vested property under § 32(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The Act precluded judicial review, and the challenged determination was committed to executive discretion, making the Administrative Procedure Act unavailable. Conclusory allegations of arbitrary action did not change the nature of the claim, and the Declaratory Judgment Act supplied no independent jurisdiction. Justice Brennan dissented, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black and Douglas. They distinguished an independent suit to recover property from judicial review of an administrative decision and would have permitted review of the legal determination that Schilling was ineligible for discretionary relief.

Holding

  • Availability of judicial review of the administrative eligibility determination under § 32(a).. The District Court lacked jurisdiction because the Trading with the Enemy Act excluded a judicial remedy for this claim and the challenged administrative action was committed to executive discretion; both exceptions to review under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act applied.
  • Effect of allegations that the denial was arbitrary and capricious.. The complaint's conclusory allegations did not establish a basis for judicial review because, read with its factual allegations and the administrative decision, it charged only an erroneous administrative determination.
  • Availability of relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.. The Declaratory Judgment Act did not provide jurisdiction or an otherwise unavailable remedy.

Docket 319

Cited authorities

  • 35 U.S.C. §§ 89-96
  • 11 FR 5381
  • 60 Stat. 50
  • 60 Stat. 930
  • 60 Stat. 243
  • 5 U.S.C. § 1009
  • 40 Stat. 1021
  • 60 Stat. 50

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF