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

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

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. 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. 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. 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. 677.

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