Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

Holding that there is an implied cause of action for money damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment

Bennett v. Spear

Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"

Lopez v. Davis

Holding that a mandatory statutory command had a different meaning than nearby permissive commands because "Congress’ use of the permissive ‘may’ in [one subsection] contrasts with the legislators’ use of a mandatory ‘shall’ in the very same section"

Franklin v. Massachusetts

Holding that the decennial census report was not subject to judicial review, because it carried "no direct consequences for the reapportionment," and the President was "not expressly required to adhere to the policy decisions reflected in the Secretary's report"

Bell v. Hood

Holding that an asserted federal claim triggers federal question jurisdiction unless the claim "clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous"

Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas

Holding "RLUIPA is clear enough to create a right for damages on the cause-of-action analysis, but not clear enough to do so in a manner that abrogates state sovereign immunity from suits for monetary relief"

Bowsher v. Synar

Holding that the Comptroller General was not an executive officer and could not exercise executive power granted to him by statute

Trudeau v. Federal Trade Com'n

Holding APA § 702's waiver applies to claims against an agency for nonmonetary relief regardless of whether the challenged agency action constitutes "final agency action" subject to review under APA § 704

Sackett v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

Holding that the agency action at issue satisfied Bennett prong two because it exposed petitioners to double penalties in a future enforcement proceeding and limited their ability to obtain a certain type of permit

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Section 1331 - Federal question

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

Section 706 - Scope of review

Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

Section 702 - Right of review

Granting judicial review of "agency action"

Section 1361 - Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty

Granting to the district courts "original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff"

Section 551 - Definitions

Adopting the definition set out in the APA

Section 500 - Administrative practice; general provisions