Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
7,792 results
0.89s
Amicus Curiae Brief — Gratz v. Bollinger
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2003
Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992) United States v. Hohri, 482 U.S. 64 (1987) United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128 (1965) United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987) Virginia v. … Hohri, 482 U.S. 64 (1987). See also The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Pub. L.
539 U.S. 244Amicus Curiae Brief — Robert Mallory, Petitioner v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jul 12, 2022
Pomerance, 423 A.2d 174 (Del. 1980) .........................................31 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. … Pomerance, 423 A.2d 174, 176 (Del. 1980); see also Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Leonard W. Hoffmann, et al., Petitioners v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Aug 20, 2026
New Jersey, 594 U.S. 482 (2021) ..................................... 7-8, 17-19 Petersburg Sch. Dist. of Nelson Cnty. v. … New Jersey, 594 U.S. 482, 494 (2021) (citing Act of Mar. 3, 1809, 2 Stat. 539, and Custiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 233 (1810)).
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Sep 19, 2025
O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 423 (2006) (emphasis added) (cleaned up). That approach may make sense when the least restrictive means test applies. … See id. at 423–25; see also City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61, 73 (2022) (describing the commercial speech test as “intermediate scrutiny”).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Oberg
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1994
Buerkle Buick Honda Co., 809 F.2d 539 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 928 (1987) 3 McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe, 486 U.S. 128 (1988) 4 O'Shea v. … Buerkle Buick Honda Co., 809 F.2d 539 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 928 (1987) (same); Runyan v.
511 U.S. 1108Amicus Curiae Brief — McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2005
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) ..........:cccccccseeeeeeees 10 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) .........:ccceesseee 20-21 Everson v. … Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 594 (1987) (“the Ten Commandments [did not] play{] an exclusively religious role in the history of 21 Western Civilization.”); King v.
545 U.S. 844Amicus Curiae Brief — Clearstream Banking S.A., Petitioner v. Deborah D. Peterson, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Dec 9, 2019
Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987).............................................................. 17 The Schooner Exch. v. … Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 543 n.27 (1987).
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Nov 13, 2017
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) ................................................ 9 Engel v. … Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)). 10 religion—will go unchecked. The standing issue therefore merits this Court’s review. 2.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · May 21, 2026
Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) . . . . . . . 24 NLRB v. … Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 728 (1987) (Brennan, J., dissenting). That principle is all the more true in a mandatory reporting scheme. Congressional purposes cannot satisfy the warrant requirement.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · May 21, 2026
Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) . . . . . . . 24 NLRB v. … Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 728 (1987) (Brennan, J., dissenting). That principle is all the more true in a mandatory reporting scheme. Congressional purposes cannot satisfy the warrant requirement.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 7, 2024
Mathews, 423 U.S. 975 (1975) ......................................... 1 Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgs. v. Tex. Med. Bd., 627 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2010) ................... 1 Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. … Mathews, 423 U.S. 975 (1975); Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgs. v. Tex. Med. Bd., 627 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2010); Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgs. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C.
Amicus Curiae Brief — The GEO Group, Inc., Petitioner v. Alejandro Menocal, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Sep 22, 2025
Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) ........................................... 19 iii Goldey v. Fields, 606 U.S. 942 (2025) ....................................... 4, 18 Gordon v. Nat’l R.R. … Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 491 (2022) (quoting Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 75 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring); Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93, 100 (2020)).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Dec 21, 2023
Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). … Id. at 482.
Amicus Curiae Brief — The ERISA Industry Committee, Petitioner v. City of Seattle, Washington
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 18, 2022
Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. … Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 11 (1987) (“It is thus clear that ERISA’s pre-emption provision was prompted by recognition that employers establishing and maintaining employee benefit plans are faced with the task
Amicus Curiae Brief — University of Puerto Rico v. Toledo (No. 06-779)
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2006
Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 (1907) Hairston v. Drosick, 423 F. Supp. 180 (S.D.W.Va. 1976) Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980) (per curiam) Harrison v. … Drosick, 423 F. Supp. 180, 184 (S.D.W.Va. 1976); Cuyahoga County Ass'n for Retarded Children & Adults v. Essex, 411 F. Supp. 46, 58-59 (N.D. Ohio 1976); Panitch v. Wisconsin, 444 F.
Amicus Curiae Brief — MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2007
Helms, 482 U.S. 755 (1987).....0....00...00.cccccceccuee 19 Hull v. Brunswick Corp., 704 F.2d 1195 i sspumundanions 13 J. E. Riley Investment Co. v. … See, e.g., Wilton, 515 U.S. at 288; Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 762-63 (1987); Pub. Affairs Assocs., Inc. v.
549 U.S. 118Amicus Curiae Brief — District Intown Properties Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2000
Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) ... First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) ... Florida Rock Indus. v. … Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985); MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340 (1986); First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987); Nollan v.
531 U.S. 812Amicus Curiae Brief — Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2000
Cascade School District Union High School, 512 F.2d 850 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 DE So bes dnneccccccccccccccess Childers v. Dallas Police Dep't, 513 F. Supp. 134 (N.D. … Cascade School District Union High School, 512 F.2d 850 (9" Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 839 (1975); Childers v. Dallas Police Dep't, 513 F.Supp. 134 (N.D.
530 U.S. 640Amicus Curiae Brief — Joseph A. Kennedy, Petitioner v. Bremerton School District
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 25, 2022
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 23 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Epperson v. … Aguillard, holding the law unconstitutional because it lacked a secular purpose and symbolically endorsed religious ideas. 482 U.S. 578, 583, 592 (1987).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Agostini v. Felton
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1997
Aguilar, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) ............. 9 Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) ................. 9-10,18 elton v. … Aguilar, 482 U.S. 578, 636 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
521 U.S. 203
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.