In the case of United States, et al. v. Thomas Lamar Bean (2002), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court does not have authority to restore an individual's right to possess firearms under 18 U.S.C §925(c). The respondent, Thomas Lamar Bean, was convicted in Mexico for importing ammunition and as a result lost his right to own guns in the US under federal law. He appealed this loss of rights through administrative channels but was denied due to lack of funding within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for investigating such cases. Subsequently he sought relief from a Federal District Court which granted it based on its interpretation that it had discretion when ATF could not act because of funding issues. However, upon further appeal by government agencies involved, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating only ATF has been given power by Congress via §925(c) statute to grant relief from firearm disabilities and courts cannot assume or infer these powers even if ATF is unable or unwilling due to budgetary constraints.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Thomas Lamar Bean, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of federal law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress did not intend to give foreign officials authority over American citizens' Second Amendment rights when it enacted 18 U.S.C §925(c). This statute allows individuals prohibited from possessing firearms to apply for relief if their circumstances have changed significantly since their conviction or commitment. The majority interpreted this provision as allowing such applications to be made through a "federal official," which they defined broadly enough to include foreign officials like those who had convicted Bean in Mexico. However, Justice Thomas disagreed with this interpretation, arguing that it stretched the meaning of "federal official" beyond what Congress intended and gave too much power over Americans' constitutional rights to foreign authorities.