52 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 29,208 times 144 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
List v. Driehaus
573 U.S. 149 (2014) Cited 2,177 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that injury was imminent because plaintiffs demonstrated that enforcement actions took place 20 to 80 times each year and thus "are not a rare occurrence"
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ.
526 U.S. 629 (1999) Cited 2,052 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that agencies' unambiguous regulations satisfy the notice requirements under the spending power
Wash. State Grange v. Wa. State Repub. Party
552 U.S. 442 (2008) Cited 1,335 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should neither "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" nor "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied"
Chavez v. Martinez
538 U.S. 760 (2003) Cited 1,298 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights
U.S. v. Morrison
529 U.S. 598 (2000) Cited 1,301 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress exceeded its interstate commerce powers in enacting a civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
387 U.S. 136 (1967) Cited 5,367 times 9 Legal Analyses
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"
Heckler v. Chaney
470 U.S. 821 (1985) Cited 2,099 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute did not provide meaningful standards because it did not "speak to the criteria which shall be used by the agency for investigating possible violations of the [statute]"
Cannon v. University of Chicago
441 U.S. 677 (1979) Cited 2,410 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination
Heckler v. Ringer
466 U.S. 602 (1984) Cited 1,801 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs' claims were not wholly collateral to a statutory scheme of administrative and judicial review of Medicare payment decisions, where plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory challenge to an agency's procedure for reaching payment decisions was "at bottom" an attempt to reverse the agency's decision to deny payment
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 163,896 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 Cited 7,096 times 34 Legal Analyses
Granting Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” and to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
Section 1092 - Institutional and financial assistance information for students
20 U.S.C. § 1092 Cited 109 times 12 Legal Analyses
Requiring funding recipients to collect statistics on crimes motivated by the victim's "gender, ... sexual orientation"
Section 100.7 - Conduct of investigations
34 C.F.R. § 100.7 Cited 195 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing simply for the filing of a written complaint within 180 days of alleged discrimination

Doe v. United States Department of Education et al

52 Cited authorities

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that injury was imminent because plaintiffs demonstrated that enforcement actions took place 20 to 80 times each year and thus "are not a rare occurrence"

Holding that agencies' unambiguous regulations satisfy the notice requirements under the spending power

Holding that courts should neither "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" nor "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied"

Holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights

Holding that Congress exceeded its interstate commerce powers in enacting a civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence

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"

Holding that a statute did not provide meaningful standards because it did not "speak to the criteria which shall be used by the agency for investigating possible violations of the [statute]"

Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Granting Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” and to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

Requiring funding recipients to collect statistics on crimes motivated by the victim's "gender, ... sexual orientation"

Providing simply for the filing of a written complaint within 180 days of alleged discrimination