• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 39-53 of 1,134 results

Cato Institute v. U.S. Department of Education et al

Docket 5:22-cv-04055, Kansas District Court (Oct. 18, 2022)
District Judge Toby Crouse, presiding, Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz
Administrative Procedure Act
DivisionTopeka
FlagsCLOSED, MJLC1
Cause05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Case Type899 Administrative Procedure Act
Tags899 Administrative Procedure Act, 899 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff Cato Institute
Defendant U.S. Department of Education
Defendant Miguel Cardona
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Application for stay presented to -

Document James R. McHenry, III, Acting Attorney General, et al., Applicants v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Incorporated, et al., 24A653, Application for stay presented to, (U.S. Jan. 23, 2025)
The December 5, 2024 amended order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case No. 4:24–cv–478, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.
I would, however, go a step further and, as the government suggests, take this case now to resolve definitively the question whether a district court may issue universal injunctive re- lief.
However likely the Government’s success on the merits may be, in my view, emergency relief is not appropriate be- cause the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient ex- igency to justify our intervention.
Second, the Government deferred implementation on its own accord—setting an enforcement date of nearly four years after Congress enacted the law—despite the fact that the harms it now says warrant our involvement were likely to occur during that period.
The Government has provided no indication that injury of a more serious or significant na- ture would result if the Act’s implementation is further de- layed while the litigation proceeds in the lower courts.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application for stay presented to -

Document James R. McHenry, III, Acting Attorney General, et al., Applicants v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Incorporated, et al., 24A653, Application for stay presented to, (U.S. Jan. 23, 2025)
The December 5, 2024 amended order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case No. 4:24–cv–478, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.
I would, however, go a step further and, as the government suggests, take this case now to resolve definitively the question whether a district court may issue universal injunctive re- lief.
However likely the Government’s success on the merits may be, in my view, emergency relief is not appropriate be- cause the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient ex- igency to justify our intervention.
Second, the Government deferred implementation on its own accord—setting an enforcement date of nearly four years after Congress enacted the law—despite the fact that the harms it now says warrant our involvement were likely to occur during that period.
The Government has provided no indication that injury of a more serious or significant na- ture would result if the Act’s implementation is further de- layed while the litigation proceeds in the lower courts.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Schemel et al v. City of Marco Island Florida et al

Docket 2:22-cv-00079, Florida Middle District Court (Feb. 7, 2022)
Judge John L. Badalamenti, presiding, Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy
Civil Rights - Other
DivisionFt. Myers
Cause42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Case Type440 Civil Rights - Other
Tags440 Civil Rights, Other, 440 Civil Rights, Other
Plaintiff Schemel
Defendant City of Marco Island Florida
Plaintiff Shannon Schemel
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Vanderselt et al v. Biden et al

Docket 1:22-cv-00005, Michigan Western District Court (Jan. 4, 2022)
District Judge Paul L. Maloney, presiding, Magistrate Judge Ray Kent (events as ordered)
Administrative Procedure Act
DivisionGrand Rapids (Southern Division)
FlagsATTYACTIONREQD
Demand$1,000
Cause05:702 Administrative Procedure Act
Case Type899 Administrative Procedure Act
Tags899 Administrative Procedure Act, 899 Administrative Procedure Act
Vanderselt
Biden
plaintiff Ryan Vanderselt
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Petition DENIED Justice Gorsuch would

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Petition DENIED Justice Gorsuch would (U.S. Jul. 2, 2024)
Because the standard this Court currently applies to determine whether Congress has impermissibly delegated legislative power “largely abdicates our duty to enforce that prohibition,” I would grant the petition.
I continue to adhere to my view that the intelligible prin- ciple test “does not adequately reinforce the Constitution’s allocation of legislative power.” Association of American Railroads, 575 U. S., at 77 (opinion of THOMAS, J.
); see also Gundy v. United States, 588 U. S. 128, 164 (2019) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (explaining that our current in- telligible principle test “has no basis in the original mean- ing of the Constitution, in history, or even in [our prece- dents]”).
Congress purported to empower an administrative agency to impose whatever workplace-safety standards it deems “appropri- ate.” That power extends to virtually every business in the United States.
It would be no less objec- tionable if Congress gave the Internal Revenue Service au- thority to impose any tax on a particular person that it deems “appropriate,” and I doubt any jurist would sustain
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED

Document Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, 23-367...
But, none of the views advanced in a §10(j) pe- tition represent the Board’s formal position—they are simply the preliminary legal and factual views of the Board’s in-house attorneys who investigated and initiated the administrative ...
See Oakland Cannabis, 532 U. S., at 498 (“[W]hen a court of equity exercises its discretion, it may not consider the advantages and disadvantages of nonen- forcement of the statute”).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Polyweave Packaging, Inc. v. Buttigieg

Docket 4:21-cv-00054, Kentucky Western District Court (May 19, 2021)
Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr, presiding, Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl
Administrative Procedure Act
DivisionOwensboro
FlagsCLOSED
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Case Type899 Administrative Procedure Act
Tags899 Administrative Procedure Act, 899 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff Polyweave Packaging, Inc.
Defendant Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Institute for Hazardous Materials Packaging and Certification Testing Inc v. United ...

Docket 3:21-cv-01126, Texas Northern District Court (May 18, 2021)
Senior Judge A. Joe Fish, presiding
Statutory Actions - Other
DivisionDallas
FlagsCLOSED, STAYED
Cause05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Case Type890 Statutory Actions - Other
Tags890 Statutory Actions, Other, 890 Statutory Actions, Other
Plaintiff Institute for Hazardous Materials Packaging and Certification Testing Inc
Defendant United States Department of Transportation
Defendant Peter Paul Montgomer Buttigieg
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 154 [11160113] Order filed by Judges Tymkovich, Ebel and McHugh directing the parties to file supplemental ...

Document State of Alaska, et al v. EDUC, et al, 24-3089, No. 154 (10th Cir. Feb. 20, 2025)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has issued its opinion in Missouri v. Trump, Nos. 24-2332, 24-2351, 2025 WL 518130 (8th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).
* Acting Secretary of Education Denise L. Carter is substituted as a party.
Appellate Case: 24-3089 Document: 154 Date Filed: 02/20/2025 Page: 2 must address (1) whether these appeals should remain abated and (2) whether these appeals are now moot based on the preliminary injunction ordered by the Eighth Circuit.
The briefs need not comply with the content requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), and the parties need not file paper copies of them.
Entered for the Court CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 00805198399

Document State of Missouri, et al v. Donald Trump, et al, 24-2332, No. 00805198399 (8th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 537

Document Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC, 21-60626, No. 537 (5th Cir. Feb. 3, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 259

Document Tesla v. NLRB, 21-60285, No. 259 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 260

Document Tesla v. NLRB, 21-60285, No. 260 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 31

Document Mackinac Ctr for Public Policy, et al v. Miguel Cardona, et al, 23-1736, No. 31 (6th Cir. Jul. 23, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>