Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
10,000+ results
0.26s
Amicus Curiae Brief — Bazemore v. Friday
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1986
Given that limitations period, “the critical question is whether any vresent violation exists,” United Air Lines v. … United Air Lines v.
478 U.S. 385Amicus Curiae Brief — Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2004
INT’L L. 461 (1989); Anthony D’Amato, Comment, The Alien Tort Statute and the Founding of the Constitution, 82 AM. J. INT’L L. 62 (1988). … Air Force.
542 U.S. 692Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jul 10, 2023
(cleaned up). … Fund, 561 U.S. at 510; cleaned up).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Joseph A. Kennedy, Petitioner v. Bremerton School District
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Apr 1, 2022
Such referrals are accomplished respectfully, professionally, and in a reasonable period of time.” DoDI 1304.28, § 3.1(g)(3). … Michelle Tan, Chaplain under fire for comments during training, Army Times (Dec. 10, 2014) (https://bit.ly/3iJpgcL).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1989
No other comment was made, and paragraph 4 was adopted. … Inasmuch as there were no comments, paragraph 6 was adopted.
490 U.S. 122Amicus Curiae Brief — Shannon Poe, Petitioner v. Idaho Conservation League
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Apr 18, 2024
The Clean Water Act’s Private Right of Action Presents Serious Article II Problems................... 3 A. … THE CLEAN WATER ACT’S PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION PRESENTS SERIOUS ARTICLE II PROBLEMS. A. Article II bars private citizens from exercising executive power.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona, 135 S. Ct. 677 (2014) (No. 14-163)
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2014
Bankruptcy Act of Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 176, 14 Stat. 517 § 14 (repealed 1878) (“1867 Act”). Section 67 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 did much the same thing. … See Bankruptcy Act of Apr. 4, 1800, ch. 19, 2 Stat. 19 § 63 (repealed 1803); Bankruptcy Act of Aug. 19, 1841, ch. 9,5 Stat. 440 § 2 (repealed 1843); 1867 Act § 14.
Amicus Curiae Brief — United States v. Mead Corp.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2001
These safeguards are required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to afford an opportunity for interested persons to comment on agency interpretations before they become final. 5 U.S.C. § 553 … In that case, the Court considered the Environmental Protection Agency’s construction of the Clean Air Act and set forth the following standard of review: When a court reviews an agency’s construction
533 U.S. 218Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Aug 20, 2025
Indeed, Smith’s rule diverges drastically from the protections afforded to religious practice during the founding period. … Id.at 525527 (cleaned up).
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jul 2, 2026
Makin, 596 U.S. 767, 780 (2022) (cleaned up). … Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 590 (2023) (cleaned up).
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 18, 2025
Id. at 821 (cleaned up). … Id. at 66–67 (emphasis added; cleaned up).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2013
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits an unauthorized “discharge of a pollutant,” 33 U.S.C. … UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, SILVI- CULTURAL STORMWATER RUNOFF IS A NONPOINT SOURCE DISCHARGE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS CHANNELED OR FLOWS NATURALLY.
568 U.S. 1118Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 16, 2022
Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air v. Com. of Pa., 674 F.2d 970 (3d Cir. 1982) .................................18 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Devlin v. … Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air v.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Mark Todd Minor, Petitioner v. Florida
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Aug 25, 2025
Hale observed that, if the jurors numbered less than 5 twelve, they had no power to act. … American courts and commentators consistently held that it was not.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Sep 19, 2025
Ctr. for Sports Law & Policy .... 20 Comment on 2022 Proposed Title IX Rule, DE (Sept. 12, 2022) ................................................................ 2 Comment on 2023 Proposed Title IX Rule … Ky. 2014) (cleaned up). The law is not blind to the reality of sex.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 25, 2018
Shalala, 56 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 1995) ........................ 17 Safe Air for Everyone v. U.S. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007)...................................... 8 V Syncor Int’l Corp. v. … Safe Air for Everyone v. U.S. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).
Amicus Curiae Brief — South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2003
Amici Commonwealth urges that the Court affirm the Eleventh Circuit’s decision holding that the Clean Water Act (the “Act”) requires an NPDES permit where a “point source” discharges water ' This Brief … The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source without an NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342.
539 U.S. 957Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 6, 2025
Id. at 39, 44 (cleaned up). The Court employed similar reasoning to strike down the Act’s “ceiling on personal expenditures by candidates on their own behalf.” Id. at 52. … Id. at 729, 19 739, 740 (cleaned up).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Young v. Community Nutrition Institute
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1986
The most significant difference in the method of issuance is that tolerances are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures before issu- ance, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 346, 371(e), while comment … Furthermore, due to the great number of tolerances which must be promulgated, FDA may not be able to remedy this situation for an extended period of time. II.
476 U.S. 974Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 23, 2024
The public access channels had to air programs “on a first-come, first-served basis.” Id. Importantly, this Court did not say that the channel had the First Amendment right to refuse to air the film. … The actual impact of the Cable Act on 26 “It appears that for every minute of the day, approximately 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube, 510,000 comments are posted on Facebook, and 347,000
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.