23 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,710 times 138 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"
McCarthy v. Madigan
503 U.S. 140 (1992) Cited 1,830 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prisoner was not required to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons' administrative procedure before making a Bivens claim for money damages
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
387 U.S. 136 (1967) Cited 5,277 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"
Mathews v. Diaz
426 U.S. 67 (1976) Cited 969 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that congressional alienage-based restrictions on federal Medicare benefits did not violate due process
McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc.
498 U.S. 479 (1991) Cited 470 times
Holding that the INA did not strip jurisdiction over certain claims because otherwise "meaningful judicial review ... would be foreclosed"
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich
510 U.S. 200 (1994) Cited 404 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner's constitutional claims could first be brought before the agency
Ex Parte Young
209 U.S. 123 (1908) Cited 10,785 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts may enjoin state officials to conform their conduct to federal law
Telecommunications Research Action v. F.C.C
750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Cited 913 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court did not have jurisdiction to review a rule or issue a writ of mandamus because of a special review statute that assigned judicial review to the courts of appeals
National Min. Ass'n v. Department of Labor
292 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Cited 106 times
Holding that a rule is impermissibly retroactive if "applied to claims that were pending on the regulations' effective date"
Andrade v. Lauer
729 F.2d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Cited 140 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that exhaustion of CSRA remedies is not required when there is "complete divergence between the issues presented by the constitutional and personnel/statutory claims"
Section 7217 - Commission oversight of the Board
15 U.S.C. § 7217 Cited 11 times 3 Legal Analyses
Incorporating 15 U.S.C. § 78s(c)

Free Enterprise Fund et al v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al

23 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 a prisoner was not required to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons' administrative procedure before making a Bivens claim for money damages

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 congressional alienage-based restrictions on federal Medicare benefits did not violate due process

Holding that the INA did not strip jurisdiction over certain claims because otherwise "meaningful judicial review ... would be foreclosed"

Holding that petitioner's constitutional claims could first be brought before the agency

Holding that federal courts may enjoin state officials to conform their conduct to federal law

Holding that a district court did not have jurisdiction to review a rule or issue a writ of mandamus because of a special review statute that assigned judicial review to the courts of appeals

Holding that a rule is impermissibly retroactive if "applied to claims that were pending on the regulations' effective date"

Holding that exhaustion of CSRA remedies is not required when there is "complete divergence between the issues presented by the constitutional and personnel/statutory claims"

Incorporating 15 U.S.C. § 78s(c)