Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not create Article III standing: 9–0 Murthy v. Missouri: 2024: States and individual social-media users have no Article III standing to enjoin Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging social-media platforms to suppress protected speech in the future. 6-3
The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. [ 39 ] Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity". [ 39 ]
(1) Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; and (2) Whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) , or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act ; and
The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as enabling Congress to create inferior (i.e., lower) courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and are the only courts with judicial power.
[20] [a] Because the suit requested expedited consideration, the Court set a deadline at 3:00 p.m. on December 10 for the four defendant states to respond. [ 19 ] [ 21 ] Whereas a typical case submitted through a writ of certiorari requires only four justices to accept to be certified by the Supreme Court, this case would have required five ...
Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are "nationally applicable" or, alternatively, are "based on a determination ...
United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing. [1]