Search court records - party Joshua Blackman, page 5

No. 00108210480 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF filed by Amicus Curiae The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and Reversal

Document St. Dominic Academy, et al v. Makin, et al, 24-1739, No. 00108210480 (1st Cir. Nov. 4, 2024)

Representing members of the legal profession, and adherents of a minority religion, Amicus has a unique interest in ensuring the flourishing of diverse religious viewpoints and practices.

The lower court’s overly deferential application of strict scrutiny would allow Maine to make it significantly more difficult—if not outright impossible—for a religious Jewish school to function so long as the State claims that doing so is necessary to combat discrimination at a high level of generality.

While religious Jewish schools have no desire to engage in any sort of discriminatory conduct, complying with Maine’s regulations would Case: 24-1739 Document: 00118210480 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/04/2024 Entry ID: 6679156 require them to eliminate essential features that make it possible for them to achieve their sacred mission.

If this rule were enforced, during a class at a Jewish day school on the Torah, the Hebrew bible, a Christian or Muslim student must be allowed to offer their own faiths’ contrasting views about the New Testament or the Quran.

v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 746, (2020) (“This does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws, but it does protect their autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Party
- ST. Dominic Academy, a Corporation Sole, D/B/A Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland
Analyze Firm
- Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
- Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow

No. 52 Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Henry Whitaker for states of ...

Document USA v. Donald Trump, et al, 24-12311, No. 52 (11th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024)

Bailey, Andrew Bell, Daniel Bird, Brenna Coleman, Russell Commonwealth of Kentucky Drummond, Gentner Fitch, Lynn Forrester, Nathan Griffin, Tim 10.

dismissing the indictment1: Smith acted under regulations that authorize the exercise of core executive power unguided by the plenary control of the President or any principal officer accountable to him.

A majority in both houses ultimately agreed, striking the offending text and adopting in its place a clause that, rather than purporting to grant removal authority, “recogniz[ed] and affirm[ed] the unrestricted power of the President to remove.” Myers, 272 U.S. at 113–15.

The First Congress’s interpretation was also “affirmed by [the Supreme] [C]ourt in unmistakable terms.” Id. at 148; see Ex parte Hen- nen, 38 U.S. 230, 259 (1839) (affirming that it had “become the settled and well under- stood construction of the Constitution, that the power of removal was vested in the President alone”); Parsons, 167 U.S. at 330 (same and holding that U.S.

By giving the Special Counsel virtually limitless resources to exercise the power of a U.S. Attorney against a small subset of people, the regulations are “designed to heighten, not to check, all of the occupational hazards of the dedicated prosecutor; the danger of too narrow a focus, of the loss of perspective, of preoccupation with the pursuit of one alleged suspect to the exclusion of other interests.” Id. at 731 (quoting Brief for Edward H. Levi, Griffin B.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Party
- United States of America
Analyze Firm

No. 50 Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Benjamin P. Sisney for the American ...

Document USA v. Donald Trump, et al, 24-12311, No. 50 (11th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024)

ARGUMENT This case presents a straightforward problem; the statute authorizing the Attorney General to appoint independent counsel has expired but nonetheless the Attorney General has chosen to continue to attempt such ...

None of those statutes contain explicit reference to the appointment of additional officers of the United States, private citizens appointed from outside the government, or vest in the Attorney General the authority to create new officer ...

None of them contain any authorization for the Attorney General to appoint as officers private citizens from outside the government.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Party
- United States of America
Analyze Firm

No. 56 Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Aaron L. Nielson for Amicus ...

Document USA v. Donald Trump, et al, 24-12311, No. 56 (11th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024)

None, however, is on point.

B. None of the other three statutes upon which the Attorney General relied provides the necessary “law” under which Mr. Smith could be appointed.

* * * In sum, whether taken together or separately, none of the statutes upon which Appellant relies supports this appointment.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Party
- United States of America
Analyze Firm

No. 54 Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Patrick M. McSweeney for America's ...

Document USA v. Donald Trump, et al, 24-12311, No. 54 (11th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024)

... of California, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Public Advocate of the United States, One Nation Under God Foundation, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund are non-stock, nonprofit corporations, none ...

Cite Document

Analyze