United States v. Chemical Foundation

41 Citing briefs

  1. Naji Awdat Hamdan et al v. United States Department of Justice et al

    REPLY reply in support of defendants' summary judgment motion and response in opposition to plaintiffs' summary judgment motion MOTION for Summary Judgment 29 , MOTION for Summary Judgment 42

    Filed December 22, 2011

    But as the Supreme Court has recognized, there is a presumption of legitimacy accorded to the Government’s official conduct. See, e.g., Ray, 502 U.S. at 164; Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464); Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. at 14-15. As the Supreme Court held in the face of similarly ungrounded accusations in the Favish case (in the Exemption 7(C) context), where “the public interest being asserted is to show that responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties, the requester must establish more than a bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure.

  2. Uintah County et al v. Salazar et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Memorandum in Support MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Memorandum in Support

    Filed January 17, 2014

    Secretarial Order 3310 has been defunded, its implementing manuals have been superseded, and evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Chemical Found. Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926); Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971); U.S. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001).

  3. RENO ON H.C.

    Petitioner's Traverse

    Filed February 28, 2011

    n. 14; Bracyv. Gramley (1997) 520 U.S. 899, 909; United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (1926) 272 U.S. 1, 14-15; Kyles, supra, 514 U.S. at 439-440; Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at 675 n. 6; and Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 484)); and 430 (Claim 121 (Petitioner was Deprived ofa Fair and Accurate Guilt and Penalty Phase Due to Lack of Available Material Evidence(citing second petition exhibit M)). 161 2. This Court should reconsider Its Prior Denial Of Petitioner's Repetitive Habeas Claims Due to The Ineffective Assistance of Prior Habeas Counsel.

  4. Center for Food Safety et al v. Connor et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed February 12, 2010

    See Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1319 (9th Cir. 1988) (“It would be a mistake for us to assume that because an EA was inadequate in the past, BLM will not comply with NEPA in the future.”); N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 1988) (rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that oil and gas leases should be voided rather than suspended pending the completion of a new NEPA process because the risk of bureaucratic inertia would be the same in either case); League to Save Lake Tahoe, 2009 WL 3048739, at *7 (distinguishing Watt on the basis that the relevant agency decision had already been made); see also United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”).

  5. IN RE: POLAR BEAR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING AND 4(d) RULE LITIGATION - MDL 1993

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 125 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 124 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment Challenging the Listing Rule, 128 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment on Listing Rule Claims, 127 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment on Listing Rule Claims, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment Corrected Motion and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 7, 2009

    CBD overlooks entirely the fact that decisions of an administrative agency are entitled to a presumption of regularity. Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415 (agency decision is entitled to a presumption of regularity), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977); United States v. Chemical Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”) (citations omitted). To state a cause of action for improper political influence on an administrative agency, there must be some factual basis for a claim that: 1) the content of the pressure on the agency was to force it to decide upon factors not made relevant by Congress in the applicable statute; and 2) the agency’s determination must have been affected by those extraneous considerations.

  6. Sierra Club v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and a Permanent Injunction

    Filed November 20, 2009

    In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the doctrine presumes that public officers have properly discharged their official duties.”) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926). That presumption should run to any future NEPA process undertaken by RUS.

  7. OMAR et al v. HARVEY et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Order MOTION FOR PRESERVATION ORDER

    Filed February 28, 2008

    As the Supreme Court noted, mere allegations of bad faith are insufficient to defeat this presumption of regularity; rather, it requires “clear evidence to the contrary.” See Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. at 14-15; see also National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (stating that where the presumption of regularity is applicable, “clear evidence is usually required to displace it”); Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Herman, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1,8 (D.D.C. 2000) (Urbina, J.) (“When a party accuses an agency of bad faith, the agency is entitled to a presumption of administrative regularity and good faith that must be overcome with evidence.”)

  8. Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Peake et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for Protective Order

    Filed January 30, 2008

    Plaintiffs have failed to introduce any evidence that VA or VA officials would retaliate against the very individuals whom they serve, let alone the clear evidence necessary to rebut the presumption that officials “have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14- 15 (1926); see also United States v. Leavy, 422 F.2d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir. 1970) (“[F]rom a barren record we will presume no such dereliction of duty by an administrative agency.”).

  9. Haudenosaunee et al v. Kempthorne et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Remand and Stay of Litigation

    Filed November 21, 2007

    Plaintiffs’ argument lacks merit.10/ It is an established legal principle that agencies are presumed to act in accordance with the law and that their actions enjoy a presumption of regularity from the courts. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971) (rev’d on other grounds) (agency decision is entitled to a presumption of regularity); United States v. Chemical Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”) (citations omitted).

  10. Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Kempthorne et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Remand and for Stay of Litigation and Exhibit 1, Parts 1 and 2

    Filed November 21, 2007

    Plaintiffs’ argument lacks merit.10/ It is an established legal principle that agencies are presumed to act in accordance with the law and that their actions enjoy a presumption of regularity from the courts. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971) (rev’d on other grounds) (agency decision is entitled to a presumption of regularity); United States v. Chemical Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”) (citations omitted).