• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
17 results

Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security

Docket 22-578, Supreme Court of the United States (Dec. 22, 2022)
Petitioner Richard Behar
Respondent United States Department of Homeland Security
Other Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Government Accountability Project, Inc., National Security Archive, Open the Government, and Project on Government Oversight, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Richard Behar filed - Proof of Service

Document Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, 22-578, Reply of petitioner Richard Behar filed, Proof of Service (U.S. Apr. 7, 2023)
three (3) copies of the REPLY BRIEF FOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2023, PETITIONERin the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:
Solicitor General of the United States
Room 5616 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
District of Columbia My commission expires March 14, 2028.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Richard Behar filed - Certificate of Word Count

Document Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, 22-578, Reply of petitioner Richard Behar filed, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Apr. 7, 2023)
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 2,894 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.
Sworn to and subscribed before methis 7th day of April 2023. aapanieats ttSigs, oer PasOs “ za; => EXR % vot : o 3-L4-29 : i A Oy ; =é “
; District of Columbia My commission expires March 14, 2028.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Richard Behar filed - Main Document

Document Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, 22-578, Reply of petitioner Richard Behar filed, Main Document (U.S. Apr. 7, 2023)
Under its far-reaching holding, no documents that a private party provides to an agency with an expectation of confidentiality are subject to disclosure under FOIA. None.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondent Department of - Main Document

Document Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, 22-578, Brief of respondent Department of, Main Document (U.S. Mar. 24, 2023)
Second, the Secret Service observed that “even if the schedules were agency records,” the documents none- 3 theless “would be withheld in full” under several FOIA exemptions, including Exemption 7(C).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondent Department of - Proof of Service

Document Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, 22-578, Brief of respondent Department of, Proof of Service (U.S. Mar. 24, 2023)
v. [See Attached Service List] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 22-578
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion to extend the time to file a - Main Document

Document Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, 22-578, Motion to extend the time to file a, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 10, 2023)
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General
Washington, D.C. 20530 February 10, 2023 Re: Richard Behar v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 22-578
Honorable Scott S. Harris Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Mr. Harris: The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above-captioned case was filed on December 20, 2022.
This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for preparation of the government’s response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Citizens for - Main Document

Document Richard Behar, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, 22-578, Brief amici curiae of Citizens for, Main Document (U.S. Jan. 23, 2023)
None of that happened here, however, compounding the Second Circuit’s errors.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 >>