§Why CasetextPricing

City of Gaithersburg, Maryland v. United States Department of Homeland Security

RESPONSE re

26 Cited authorities

  1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    463 U.S. 29 (1983)   Cited 6,621 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

  2. Florida Power Light Co. v. Lorion

    470 U.S. 729 (1985)   Cited 1,876 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Hobbs Act vests in the court of appeals initial judicial review authority over an NRC order denying a petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 for suspension of an operating license

  3. Dep't of Commerce v. N.Y.

    139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019)   Cited 546 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Secretary of Commerce had the power "to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire" but concluding the reasons he had given for doing so for the 2020 census - at the point the case came to the Supreme Court -were insufficient to survive the "narrow" and "deferential 'arbitrary and capricious' standard"

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

    421 U.S. 132 (1975)   Cited 2,038 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FOIA does not compel agencies to write or create material to explain disclosed documents

  5. Morgan v. United States

    304 U.S. 1 (1938)   Cited 634 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary"

  6. Nat'l Sec. Archive v. Cent. Intelligence Agency

    752 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2014)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a predecisional draft "may not be dissected" because the composition of the draft itself "is part of the deliberative process"

  7. Wolf v. Cook Cnty.

    140 S. Ct. 681 (2020)   Cited 25 times
    Entertaining last-minute stay applications from the Government "upend the normal appellate process" and "force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without oral argument"

  8. Ethyl Corp. v. U.S.E.P.A

    25 F.3d 1241 (4th Cir. 1994)   Cited 156 times
    Holding that because the agency did not identify the authors or recipients, the court could not identify those “persons' relationships to the decisionmaking process”

  9. Conkright v. Frommert

    556 U.S. 1401 (2009)   Cited 24 times

    No. 08–810 08A884. 04-30-2009 Sally L. CONKRIGHT et al. v. Paul J. FROMMERT et al. Justice GINSBURG, Circuit Justice. Opinion Sally L. Conkright, Administrator of the Xerox Corporation Pension Plan, et al., have reapplied for a stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In their initial application, filed October 16, 2008, the applicants sought a stay pending the filing and disposition of their petition for certiorari. The Second Circuit's decision in their

  10. Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species

    984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that "impropriety in the process" of formulating the administrative record "creates an appearance of irregularity which the agency must then show to be harmless."