32 Cited authorities

  1. Clinton v. Jones

    520 U.S. 681 (1997)   Cited 2,694 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding in Section 1983 action no absolute immunity for damages arising from "unofficial conduct"
  2. Raines v. Byrd

    521 U.S. 811 (1997)   Cited 1,765 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"
  3. United States v. Nixon

    418 U.S. 683 (1974)   Cited 4,087 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254
  4. Baker v. Carr

    369 U.S. 186 (1962)   Cited 5,228 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"
  5. INS v. Chadha

    462 U.S. 919 (1983)   Cited 1,249 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was "adequate Art. III adverseness" because the executive branch determined that a federal statute was unconstitutional and refused to defend it but simultaneously continued to abide by it
  6. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services

    433 U.S. 425 (1977)   Cited 1,093 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because former President Nixon "constituted a legitimate class of one"
  7. Nixon v. Fitzgerald

    457 U.S. 731 (1982)   Cited 764 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denials of absolute immunity are immediately appealable
  8. Morrison v. Olson

    487 U.S. 654 (1988)   Cited 576 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding an independent counsel to be an inferior officer
  9. Chisom v. Roemer

    501 U.S. 380 (1991)   Cited 364 times
    Holding that § 2 of the VRA applies to state laws regarding election of state court judges
  10. Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund

    421 U.S. 491 (1975)   Cited 466 times
    Holding that the Speech or Debate Clause barred the plaintiffs' claims, premised on the plaintiffs' allegations that a Senate subcommittee subpoena, if complied with, would constitute an invasion of the plaintiffs' privacy and violate their First Amendment rights
  11. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,373 times   134 Legal Analyses
    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."