• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 84-98 of 1,134 results

Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional - Proof of Service

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...
Supreme Court of the United States
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional - Certificate of Word Count

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...
Supreme Court of the United States
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Brief of the Constitutional Accountability Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent contains 7,175 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 29, 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional - Main Document

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 these cases supports Starbucks’s position that equitable relief should be divorced from the context of 5 the statute that authorizes such relief, and they cer- tainly do not speak to what the statutory context re- quires here.
* * * In the years before they drafted Section 10(j), law- makers used the phrase “just and proper” many times and in many different contexts, yet none of those pro- visions suggests that the phrase “just and proper” com- pels the rigid ...
But none of these cases supports Starbucks’ position that equitable relief must be divorced from statutory context—and they certainly do not speak to what the statutory context requires in the unique framework of the NLRA.
... none of the cases on which Starbucks relies supports the position that courts exercising their equi- table authority are precluded from engaging in defer- ential review when the statutory context demands it. 24 And certainly none of those ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Brief amicus curiae of Service Employees - Certificate of Word Count

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...
In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 23-367
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Brief of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as Amicus Curiae In Support of Respondent in the above-captioned matter contains 7,547 words, excluding the parts of the brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

OPINION VACATED

Document Tesla v. NLRB, 21-60285 (5th Cir. Jul. 21, 2023)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed.
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated March 31, 2023, is
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 168

Document Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland, 24-40792, No. 168 (5th Cir. Dec. 27, 2024)
No. 24-40792 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Counsel of Record Timothy Harper (Admitted in DC)
Advancing American Freedom et al. respectfully move for leave to file the accompanying brief as amici curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellees.
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees consented to AAF’s filing of an amicus brief.
Advancing American Freedom et al. believe the attached brief provides important legal arguments and policy considerations relevant to this Court’s consideration of this case and therefore move for leave to file the attached brief as amici curiae.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of New Civil - Main Document

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amicus curiae of New Civil, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)
“By shifting responsibility [to enact workplace safety laws] to a less accountable branch, Congress protects itself from political censure—and deprives the people of the say the framers intended them to have.” Tiger Lily, 5 F.4th at 674 (Thapar, J., concurring).
Rather, Congress also must set standards that would be applied in accomplishing such goals, establish rules of decision and conduct, and do so in a manner that would allow courts and the public to determine whether the acts of the executive were consistent with the legislative intent expressed in a statute.
pet. filed June 21, 2023); United States v. Cooper, 750 F.3d 263, 272 (3d Cir. 2014) (“under controlling nondelegation doctrine jurisprudence, the hurdle for the government … is not high”); Granados v. Garland, 17 F.4th 475, 480 (4th Cir. 2021) (“intelligible principle is not an exacting standard”); Bhatti v. Fed. Hous.
Agency, 15 F.4th 848, 854 (8th Cir. 2021) (since the Supreme Court found that “in the ‘public interest, convenience, or necessity’” was a sufficient intelligible principle, there is a “low threshold for validation under the nondelegation doctrine”); Consumers’ Research v. FCC, 88 F.4th 917, 924 (11th Cir. 2023); id. at 929 (Newsom, J., concurring in judgment) (“Their challenge fails, as I see it, only because non-delegation doctrine has become a punchline.”).
In short, the majority could avoid the conclusion that the OSH Act lacks any ascertainable limits on the Secretary’s authority to enact workplace safety mandates only by rewriting the statute, effectively replacing “may” with “shall” and “or” with “and.” Pet.App.14a-16a.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of The Buckeye - Certificate of Word Count

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amici curiae of The Buckeye, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)
Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals
JULIE A. Su, ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL., Respondents.
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(h), I certify that the Amici Curiae Brief of the Buckeye Institute and the Manhattan Institute in Support of Petitioner contains 5,321 words, excluding the parts of the Brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(d).
State of Ohio County of Hamilton I declare under penalty of perJury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires December 18, 2027
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern - Main Document

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)
Peti- tioner, a small business that has never experienced a major work-related injury, faces tens of thousands of dollars in fines if it violates any one of OSHA’s many arbitrary standards—standards that OSHA creates, defines, and enforces.
The Framers believed that it “would frustrate ‘the system of government ordained by the Constitution’ if Congress could merely announce vague aspirations and then assign others the respon- sibility of adopting legislation to realize its goals.’” Gundy, 139 S. Ct. at 2133 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).
During the first Congress, James Madison proposed a nondelegation amendment as a part of the Bill of Rights that would have “specified explicitly that no department of the na- tional government could ever exercise the powers del- egated by the Constitution to another branch.” Wurman, supra, at 1504; 1 Annals of Cong. 789 (1789) (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
The objections raised by his fellow Congressmen, and Madison’s de- fense of his amendment as intentionally duplicative, illustrate the Framers’ understanding that the Consti- tution already prevented one branch from delegating its powers to another.
Indeed, the struc- tural division of powers “ensure[s] that the repre- sentative interests of people electing legislators from throughout the country are represented in policy pro- posals in a way that would not be possible via regula- tory decisions made by a singular, centralized admin- istrative entity.” Mascott, supra, at 1395-96.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of New Civil - Proof of Service

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amicus curiae of New Civil, Proof of Service (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal - Main Document

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute - Certificate of Word Count

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of The Buckeye - Proof of Service

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amici curiae of The Buckeye, Proof of Service (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern - Certificate of Word Count

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute - Proof of Service

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute, Proof of Service (U.S. Feb. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... >>