§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Navy Chaplaincy

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Reconsideration Order Denying Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order in CFGC v. Winter and Adair v. Winter MOTION for Protective Order Against Discovery of Selective Early Retirement Board Deliberations

67 Cited authorities

  1. County of Sacramento v. Lewis

    523 U.S. 833 (1998)   Cited 8,867 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

  2. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz

    482 U.S. 342 (1987)   Cited 3,916 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a policy satisfied this factor even though inmates could not attend a particular Muslim prayer service because the inmates could still "participate in other Muslim religious ceremonies"

  3. Demore v. Kim

    538 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 1,695 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mandatory detention of noncitizens convicted of a wide variety of offenses does not violate the Due Process Clause

  4. City of Boerne v. Flores

    521 U.S. 507 (1997)   Cited 1,813 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors

  5. Employment Div. v. Smith

    494 U.S. 872 (1990)   Cited 2,290 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the limitation articulated in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398-i.e., that governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest-does not apply to neutral, generally applicable laws

  6. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca

    480 U.S. 421 (1987)   Cited 2,403 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

  7. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

    387 U.S. 136 (1967)   Cited 5,338 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"

  8. Washington v. Davis

    426 U.S. 229 (1976)   Cited 3,305 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause

  9. Jackson v. Birmingham Bd.

    544 U.S. 167 (2005)   Cited 909 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the text of Title IX prohibits a funding recipient from retaliating against a person who speaks out against sex discrimination, because such retaliation is intentional ‘discrimination’ ‘on the basis of sex’ "

  10. Cannon v. University of Chicago

    441 U.S. 677 (1979)   Cited 2,384 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

  11. Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1988   Cited 21,998 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)

  12. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  13. Section 2000bb - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes

    42 U.S.C. § 2000bb   Cited 1,557 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in Smith, "the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion"

  14. Section 8128 - Review of award

    5 U.S.C. § 8128   Cited 385 times
    Stating that the "action of the Secretary . . . in allowing or denying a payment" of FECA benefits is "final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact" and "not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise."

  15. Section 2000bb-3 - Applicability

    42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3   Cited 105 times
    Providing that the RFRA applies to "implementation" of "all Federal law"

  16. Section 618 - Action on reports of selection boards

    10 U.S.C. § 618   Cited 24 times

    (a) (1) Upon receipt of the report of a selection board submitted to him under section 617(a) of this title, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall review the report to determine whether the board has acted contrary to law or regulation or to guidelines furnished the board under section 615(b) of this title. Following such review, unless the Secretary concerned makes a determination as described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit the report as required by subsection (b)

  17. Section 612 - Composition of selection boards

    10 U.S.C. § 612   Cited 14 times

    (a) (1) Members of selection boards shall be appointed by the Secretary of the military department concerned in accordance with this section. A selection board shall consist of five or more officers of the same armed force as the officers under consideration by the board. Each member of a selection board (except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)) shall be an officer on the active-duty list. Each member of a selection board must be serving in a grade higher than the grade of the officers

  18. Section 613 - Oath of members of selection boards

    10 U.S.C. § 613   Cited 8 times

    Each member of a selection board shall swear that he will perform his duties as a member of the board without prejudice or partiality and having in view both the special fitness of officers and the efficiency of his armed force. 10 U.S.C. § 613 Added Pub. L. 96-513, title I, §105, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2851. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATESection effective Sept. 15, 1981, but the authority to prescribe regulations under this section effective on Dec. 12, 1980, see section