Great Legal Writing curation workbench · user zero Sign in with Google
0 of 7793 passages scored · 0 marked keep
reset
CasePassageTypeTopicWordsScoreStatus
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits) A A. The Plain Language Of IDEA Shows That Excluded “Med sub-arg 1864 — candidate
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits) B B. The Secretary Of Education’s Interpretation Of The sub-arg 1635 — candidate
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits) C C. Congress Has Ratified The Secretary’s Interpretatio sub-arg 873 — candidate
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits) D D. Petitioner’s Cost-Based Arguments To Expand IDEA’s sub-arg 1547 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits A A. An Offense May Be Prosecuted In Any District In Whi sub-arg ❝ 913 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits B B. Venue In A Prosecution Under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) Is sub-arg ❝ 1691 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits C C. The Court Of Appeals’ “Key Verb” Test Should Be Rej sub-arg ❝ 850 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits D D. This Court’s Decision In United States v. Cabrales sub-arg ❝ 511 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits E E. Prosecution Of Respondent’s Section 924(c) Offense sub-arg ❝ 639 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) A A. Even Before The Enactment Of IIRIRA, Judicial Revie sub-arg ❝ 591 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) B B. IIRIRA Precludes Judicial Review Of Respondents’ Se sub-arg 799 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) C C. Deferral Of Respondents’ Selective Enforcement Chal sub-arg ❝ 2530 — candidate
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. - Amicus (merits) A A. The Plain Language Of The Absolute Priority Rule Ad sub-arg ❝ 1416 — candidate
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. - Amicus (merits) B B. The Legislative History Recognizes No New Value Exc sub-arg ❝ 1865 — candidate
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. - Amicus (merits) C C. Rejection Of A New Value Exception Is Consistent Wi sub-arg 1668 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits A A. The Attorney General’s Interpretation Of The Seriou sub-arg 872 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits B B. The Board of Immigration Appeals Reasonably Conclud sub-arg 2382 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits C C. The Board Reasonably Concluded That Respondent’s Of sub-arg 1280 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits D D. The Board Reasonably Concluded That Respondent’s Of sub-arg 763 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits E E. Substantial Evidence Supported The Board’s Determin sub-arg 1086 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) A A. The Text Of Section 1981a Makes The Availability Of sub-arg 1041 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) B B. The Structure Of Section 1981a Supports A Standard sub-arg 1467 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) C C. Analogous Civil Rights Legislation And General Tort sub-arg 448 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) D D. The Legislative History Supports Permitting Punitiv sub-arg 1247 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) E E. The Purposes Of The 1991 Act Support Permitting Pun sub-arg 865 — candidate
Togo West v. Gibson - Merits A A. The EEOC’s Statutory Authority To Enforce Title VII sub-arg 2365 — candidate
Togo West v. Gibson - Merits B B. The Court of Appeals’ Reasons for Concluding That T sub-arg ❝ 2019 — candidate
Clinton v. Goldsmith - Merits I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES LACKED JU sub-arg 2224 — candidate
Clinton v. Goldsmith - Merits II II. THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND EX POST FACTO CLAUSES DO N sub-arg 3121 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits I.A A. A “Representative of the Agency” Within The Meaning sub-arg 1885 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits I.B.1 1. The Inspector General Act makes an OIG independent sub-arg 1494 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits I.B.2 2. The Inspector General Act imposes obligations on th sub-arg 1365 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits I.C C. The FLRA’s Decision Is Not Entitled To Deference sub-arg 345 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits I.D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Analysis Is Based On Flawed P sub-arg 1071 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits II II. NASA HEADQUARTERS IS NOT GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR sub-arg 640 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits A A. The APA Applies By Its Terms To Review Of PTO Actio sub-arg 843 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits U U.S.C. 559 Does Not Authorize The Imposition Of A Non- sub-arg 1368 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits C C. The History And Purposes Of The APA Support A Strai sub-arg 995 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits D D. The Policy Arguments Advanced By Respondents And Th sub-arg 1516 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits E E. The Federal Circuit’s Adherence To An ExtraStatutor sub-arg 805 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits I.A A. Reducing The Social Costs Of Casino Gambling sub-arg 3353 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits I.B B. Assisting States That Prohibit Casino Gambling sub-arg 576 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits II.A A. Section 1304 Reduces Gambling And Its Social Costs sub-arg 1255 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits II.B B. The Statutory Exceptions Do Not Prevent Section 130 sub-arg 1680 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits III III. Section 1304 Is Not An Impermissibly Broad Restri sub-arg 986 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits IV IV. If The Existing Record Is Inadequate To Resolve Th sub-arg 511 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits I.A A. The House Of Representatives’ Asserted “Information sub-arg 1072 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits I.B B. The House Of Representatives’ Purported Interest In sub-arg 616 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits II.A.1 1. 13 U.S.C. 141(a) expressly authorizes the use of “s sub-arg 647 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits II.A.2 2. 13 U.S.C. 195 does not prohibit the use of sampling sub-arg 690 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits II.B B. The History Of The Census Act Does Not Support The sub-arg 1575 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits III.A A. The Text Of The Census Clause Does Not Require The sub-arg 391 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits III.B B. The Debates At The Constitutional Convention Indica sub-arg 1168 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits III.C C. The House Of Representatives’ Interpretation Of The sub-arg 503 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits A.1 1. Congress Intended Section 5 To Bar Implementation O sub-arg 1296 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits A.2 2. This Court Has Construed Section 5 To Bar Voting Ch sub-arg ❝ 1816 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits A.3 3. The Attorney General’s Construction Of Section 5 Is sub-arg 204 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits B.1 1. Proper Analysis Of The Board’s Adoption Of The 1992 sub-arg 2030 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits B.2 2. To The Extent The District Court May Have Ruled Tha sub-arg 1297 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits A A. Appellees Have Failed To Identify Any State That Wo sub-arg 1863 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits B B. Appellees Cannot Establish Standing Based On The Ex sub-arg 1612 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits C C. Appellees Cannot Establish Standing Based On Specul sub-arg 948 — candidate
Drye v. United States - Merits A A. Federal Law Determines Whether A Right Or Interest sub-arg 803 — candidate
Drye v. United States - Merits U U.S.C. 6321 sub-arg 1112 — candidate
Drye v. United States - Merits C C. The Federal Tax Lien That Attached To Petitioner’s sub-arg 1954 — candidate
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care - Merits A A. WHERE THE MEDICARE ACT PROVIDES A MECHANISM FOR OBT sub-arg 3053 — candidate
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care - Merits B B. MICHIGAN ACADEMY DOES NOT PERMIT FEDERAL COURTS TO sub-arg 3778 — candidate
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care - Merits C C. RESPONDENT’S CLAIMS CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY OF THE sub-arg 1735 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits A A. FDA’s Interpretation Is Supported By The Plain Lang sub-arg 1565 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits B B. FDA’s Interpretation Is Also Supported By FDA’s Pri sub-arg 2033 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits C C. FDA’s Interpretation Is Consistent With The Structu sub-arg 1678 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits D D. FDA’s Prior Statements, Unenacted Tobacco Bills, An sub-arg 3178 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits I.A A. The Right To Exercise Peremptory Challenges Under F sub-arg 795 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits I.B B. Requiring A Defendant To Use A Peremptory Challenge sub-arg 571 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits I.C C. Any Impairment In This Case Of The Right To Exercis sub-arg 1229 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits II.A A. An Impairment Of Peremptory Challenges Is Harmless sub-arg 869 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits II.B B. A Rule Of Automatic Reversal Is Justified By Neithe sub-arg 1131 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits II.C C. The Record Does Not Demonstrate Prejudice From Any sub-arg 523 — candidate
Reno v. Condon - Merits A A. Personal Information Held In State Motor Vehicle Re sub-arg 796 — candidate
Reno v. Condon - Merits B B. The DPPA Does Not Commandeer Or Conscript States In sub-arg 2161 — candidate
Reno v. Condon - Merits C C. The DPPA Permissibly Regulates State Activity Even sub-arg 2639 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits I.A A. The Court Has Abandoned The Premises Of A Blanket R sub-arg 2256 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits I.B B. The Establishment Clause Permits The Loan Of Supple sub-arg 1413 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits I.C C. Under Title VI, Instructional Equipment And Materia sub-arg 2231 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits II II. THE VALIDITY OF THE SPECIFIC TITLE VI PROGRAM AT I sub-arg 1041 — candidate
Baral v. United States - Merits I I. REMITTANCES OF ESTIMATED TAXES AND OF TAXES WITHHEL sub-arg 444 — candidate
Baral v. United States - Merits II II. REMITTANCES OF WITHHOLDING TAXES AND ESTIMATED TAX sub-arg 4329 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits I.A A. First Amendment Scrutiny Of The Regulation Of Sexua sub-arg 2523 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits I.B B. Even If Strict Scrutiny Applies, The Hypothetical V sub-arg 46 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits I.B.1 1. alternative to Section 505 because it does not full sub-arg 1041 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits I.B.2 2. The enhanced Section 504 is not less restrictive th sub-arg 1245 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits I.C C. At The Very Least, Section 505 Is Constitutional As sub-arg 187 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits II II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT IT WAS sub-arg 901 — candidate
United States v. Johnson - Merits A A. The Relevant Statutory Provisions Unambiguously Pro sub-arg 1007 — candidate
United States v. Johnson - Merits B B. Congress’s Principal Purpose In Authorizing Supervi sub-arg 1151 — candidate
United States v. Johnson - Merits C C. Congress Has Provided A Different Avenue Of Relief sub-arg 659 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits A A. The National Government Historically Has Exercised sub-arg 1622 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits B.1 1. Under Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Title II Of Th sub-arg 1307 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits B.2 2. International Treaties And Maritime Agreements Also sub-arg 896 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits B.3 3. Coast Guard Regulations Preempt Contrary State Rule sub-arg 413 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits C C. Certain Of The Washington Best Achievable Protectio sub-arg 2023 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Analysis Upholding The State sub-arg 1103 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits E E. The Decision Below Hinders The United States’ Abili sub-arg 673 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits I.A A. In Statutes That Define The Relationship Between Re sub-arg 1289 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits I.B B. The Subject Matter Of The FCA Strongly Suggests Tha sub-arg 532 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits I.C C. The FCA’s Other Uses Of The Word “Person” Confirm T sub-arg 426 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits I.D D. The Legislative History Of The 1986 FCA Amendments sub-arg 427 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits I.E E. The Remedies Provided By The FCA Are Not Presumptiv sub-arg 710 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits II.A A. The Qui Tam Mechanism Is A Well-Established Hybrid sub-arg 1594 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits II.B B. The United States Retains Significant Incidents Of sub-arg 467 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits II.C C. The Application Of Eleventh Amendment Principles Ch sub-arg 1636 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) A A. The President’s Constitutional Responsibilities For sub-arg 1359 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) B B. The Complex And Delicate Character Of Diplomatic Re sub-arg 1363 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) C.1.a. FOIA a. FOIA requires deference to the President’s specific sub-arg 170 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) C.1.b. The E b. The Executive Order protects against the harm that sub-arg 1154 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) C.1.c c. Historical practice supports the Executive Branch’s sub-arg 553 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) C.1.d d. This Court’s decisions support the Executive Branch sub-arg 1414 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. FOIA requires utmost deference to the Executive Bra sub-arg 1713 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I.A.1 1. The Secretary reasonably construed “preference” to sub-arg 253 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I.A.2 2. The “permitted use” rule reasonably implements stat sub-arg 1283 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I.A.3 3. The FLPMA subjects grazing to the land use planning sub-arg 1202 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I.B.1 1. No concept of “adjudicated forage” confers a perman sub-arg 935 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I.B.2 2. Petitioners misconstrue the TGA’s “adequately safeg sub-arg 992 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I.B.3 3. The FLPMA and the PRIA support the rules sub-arg 422 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I.B.4 4. Petitioners’ economic reliance argument is unpersua sub-arg 536 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY UPHELD THE 1995 MAND sub-arg 1201 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY UPHELD THE 1995 RUL sub-arg 1495 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits I I. CONGRESS HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY EXPRESSED ITS INTENT TO sub-arg 1151 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits II.A.1 1. Classifications Based On Age Are Proper Subjects Fo sub-arg 1983 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits II.A.2 2. Congress Determined, On An Ample Record, That Uncon sub-arg 1216 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits II.B B. THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT IS REASONA sub-arg 2074 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits I.A A. What One Knowingly Exposes To Public Observation Is sub-arg 999 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits I.B B. Luggage Placed In Overhead Racks Is Knowingly Expos sub-arg 1582 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits II.A A. Handling The Exterior Of Luggage Exposed To Public sub-arg 2024 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits II.B B. Officers Are Not Limited To “Casual” Or “Incidental sub-arg 1656 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits II.C C. Officer Cantu’s Handling Of Petitioner’s Gym Bag Di sub-arg 343 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits A A. Where Exhaustion Of An Administrative Appeal Is A P sub-arg 1505 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits B B. The Second And Third Claims Of Error That Petitione sub-arg 280 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits C C. Administrative Default Principles Are Fully Applica sub-arg 2088 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits D D. Petitioner Had Fair Warning That Arguments Not Rais sub-arg 990 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits A A. A Defendant Waives An Objection To An In Limine Rul sub-arg 2446 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits B.1 1. Rule 103 Is Consistent With The Rule That A Defenda sub-arg 643 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits B.2 2. Rule 609 Is Consistent With The Rule That A Defenda sub-arg 224 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits B.3 3. The Policies Underlying The Federal Rules Of Eviden sub-arg 1075 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits C C. A Defendant’s Right To Testify Is Not Unconstitutio sub-arg 870 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits D D. The Court Should Not Remand The Case For A Determin sub-arg 540 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits A A. Absent Clear And Unequivocal Language, An Act Of Co sub-arg 1112 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits B B. The Automatic Stay Provision Does Not Preclude A Co sub-arg 819 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits C C. Other Provisions Of The Act Show That The Automatic sub-arg 983 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits D D. Interpreting The Automatic Stay Provision To Preser sub-arg 945 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits E E. Interpreting The Automatic Stay Provision To Permit sub-arg 2715 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits I.A A. Standards For Recovery Of Restitution For Material sub-arg 652 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits I.B B. Standards For Recovery Of Restitution For Repudiati sub-arg 603 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits II.A A. The Enactment And Implementation Of The OBPA Did No sub-arg 1082 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits II.B B. Central Object Of The Leases Or Constitute A Refusa sub-arg 991 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits III III. PETITIONERS WAIVED ANY CLAIM FOR MATERIAL BREACH sub-arg 871 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits IV IV. PETITIONERS HAVE RECEIVED ANY RELIEF TO WHICH THEY sub-arg 367 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Congress Rationally Found That Gender-Motivated Vio sub-arg 2118 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress May Regulate Activities That Have A Substa sub-arg 742 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Section 13981 Does Not Present The Federalism Conce sub-arg 1232 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Congress Found Sex-Based Discrimination In State Ju sub-arg 1009 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Private Right Of Action Created By Section 1398 sub-arg 681 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Congress’s Exercise Of Its Power Under The Enforcem sub-arg 1005 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits A.1 1. In Determining The State Of The Law Before Section sub-arg 949 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits A.2 2. Section 3583(e) As In Effect At The Time Of Petitio sub-arg 279 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits A.2.b. The p b. The purpose of supervised release sub-arg 1202 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits A.2.c c. Background of supervised release sub-arg 733 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits B.1 1. The Application Of A New Statute That Raises The Ma sub-arg 1553 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits B.2 2. The Actual Sanction Imposed On Petitioner Following sub-arg 698 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits B.3 3. If Application Of Section 3583(h) To Petitioner Vio sub-arg 94 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits I.A A. Section 3501 Was Intended To And Does Return To The sub-arg 1572 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits I.B B. This Court’s Decisions In Miranda And The Cases Tha sub-arg 1295 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits I.C C. Congress May Not Overrule This Court’s Decision In sub-arg 918 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits II.A A. Costs And Workability sub-arg 1404 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits II.B B. Reliance Interests sub-arg 102 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits II.C C. Developments In The Law That Have Affected The Vali sub-arg 2037 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits II.D D. Change In Factual Premises sub-arg 762 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits I.A.1 1. Bank larceny, unlike bank robbery, requires proof o sub-arg 2338 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits I.A.2 2. Bank larceny, unlike bank robbery, requires proof t sub-arg 463 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits I.A.3 3. Bank larceny, unlike bank robbery, requires proof t sub-arg 571 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits I.B B. The Legislative History Of Section 2113 Does Not Sh sub-arg 1668 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits I.C C. Precedent And Canons Of Statutory Interpretation Do sub-arg 1579 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits II II. EVEN IF BANK LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE sub-arg 657 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits I.A A. Congress Unambiguously Expressed Its Intent To Exte sub-arg 1040 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits I.B B. Application Of Section 844(i) To Petitioner’s Condu sub-arg 1359 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits I.C C. The Legislative History Of Section 844(i) Does Not sub-arg 1527 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits II.A A. Congress May Prohibit Intrastate Violent Conduct Co sub-arg 806 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits II.B B. The Effects On Interstate Commerce In This Case Wer sub-arg 940 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits II.C C. Section 844(i)’s Jurisdictional Element Ensures Tha sub-arg 1366 — candidate
United States v. Velazquez - Merits A A. Section 504(a)(16) Imposes A Reasonable Limitation sub-arg 1180 — candidate
United States v. Velazquez - Merits B B. Section 504(a)(16) Is Not Based On Impermissible Vi sub-arg 1833 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits A A. The Text And Structure Of Section 924(c)(1) Create sub-arg 1323 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits B B. There Is No Traditional Legislative Practice Of Mak sub-arg 735 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits C C. The History Of Section 924(c) Supports The Conclusi sub-arg ❝ 2671 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits D D. The Doctrine Of Constitutional Doubt Does Not Compe sub-arg 864 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) I.A A. In Section 1252(a)(2)(C) Of Title 8, Congress Has P sub-arg 1917 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress Has Also Divested The District Courts Of A sub-arg 1637 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Preclusion Of Judicial Review Of A Non-Constitution sub-arg 2556 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Neither The Due Process Clause Nor Article III Requ sub-arg 1374 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) III III. IF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGES IS sub-arg 599 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Text Of The Coal Act sub-arg 945 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Background, Legislative History, And Purposes O sub-arg 2256 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Background Principles Of Successorship Informing Th sub-arg 699 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Commissioner’s Authority Under The Act sub-arg 885 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Reasonableness Of The Commissioner’s Determinat sub-arg 1184 — candidate
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative - Brief (Merits) A A. The CSA’s Text, Structure, And Policies Bar A “Medi sub-arg 4307 — candidate
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative - Brief (Merits) B B. Courts Lack The Equitable Discretion Under The CSA sub-arg 1444 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. NONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS INVOLVED IN THI sub-arg 1328 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Consolidated Return Regulations Require The Acc sub-arg 1804 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner Is Not Entitled To The Product Liability sub-arg 2875 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Alaska v. United States Establishes The Legal Frame sub-arg 1277 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. cutive Order Reservation during negotiations with t sub-arg 1157 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. in the Reservation was necessary to achieve Congres sub-arg 303 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Congress recognized that retaining ownership of the sub-arg 318 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Congress was on notice that the 1873 Executive Orde sub-arg 381 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Congress’s purpose in retaining the Reservation req sub-arg 636 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Congress demonstrated its intent to treat the Tribe sub-arg 243 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. Congress’s intent to retain the submerged lands wit sub-arg 1581 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. The 1889 Act confirmed rather than repudiated the R sub-arg 498 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. The 1889 Act retained all interests embodied in the sub-arg 641 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.3 3. Congress need not specifically address the effects sub-arg 481 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.4 4. Congress did not intend to reject the Secretary’s d sub-arg 561 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.5 5. Congress did not delay ratification of the Agreemen sub-arg 411 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits I.A A. This Court Has Repeatedly Recognized The Authority sub-arg 421 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits I.B B. The FECA Permits Political Parties To Make Coordina sub-arg 280 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits I.C C. Respondent Asserts A First Amendment Right To Make sub-arg 574 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits II.A A. Large Party Coordinated Expenditures May Be Used To sub-arg 1051 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits II.B B. Large Coordinated Expenditures May Be Used To Advan sub-arg 422 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits II.C C. Congress May Impose Reasonable Contribution Limits sub-arg 939 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits III.A A. The Framers Distrusted Political Parties And Did No sub-arg 805 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits III.B B. The Formal Role Of Political Parties In The States’ sub-arg 801 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits III.C C. Legislative Judgments Regarding The Appropriate Bal sub-arg 422 — candidate
United States v. Cleveland Indians - Merits A.1 1. The FICA Provisions sub-arg 1943 — candidate
United States v. Cleveland Indians - Merits A.2 2. The FUTA Provisions sub-arg 1150 — candidate
United States v. Cleveland Indians - Merits B B. The Bowman Case, On Which The Court Of Appeals Base sub-arg 2466 — candidate
United States v. United Foods. Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.A A. For Each Of The Three Reasons Identified By The Cou sub-arg 1328 — candidate
United States v. United Foods. Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Distinguishing This C sub-arg 2551 — candidate
United States v. United Foods. Inc. - Brief (Merits) II II. THE GENERIC ADVERTISING PROGRAM FOR MUSHROOMS DOES sub-arg 2460 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits A A. The Plain Language Of Section 1231(a)(6) Vests The sub-arg 1239 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits B B. Other Statutory Provisions Governing Detention Of C sub-arg 670 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits C.1 1. The Predecessor Statutes To IIRIRA Support An Inter sub-arg 1068 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits C.2 2. The Legislative History Of Section 1231(a)(6) Confi sub-arg 1673 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits D D. The Attorney General’s Interpretation Of Section 12 sub-arg 566 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits E E. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Construing Section 12 sub-arg 1496 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Language Of The IGRA Does Not Exempt Tribes Fro sub-arg 1172 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Legislative History Confirms That The IGRA Does sub-arg 600 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Policy Of Encouraging Tribal Economic Developme sub-arg 604 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Canon That Ambiguities Should Be Resolved In Fa sub-arg 1472 — candidate
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC - Brief for Gov't Petitioners (Merits) I I. THE FCC’S CHOICE OF A FORWARD-LOOKING PRICING METHO sub-arg 2460 — candidate
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC - Brief for Gov't Petitioners (Merits) II II. THE COMBINATIONS RULES AT ISSUE HERE, LIKE THE ONE sub-arg 3234 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Transmission By A Utility That Utilizes An Intersta sub-arg 1455 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress Did Not Exclude Unbundled Retail Transmiss sub-arg 1582 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Commission’s Jurisdictional Holding Is Consiste sub-arg 2059 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Policy Considerations Also Do Not Support New York’ sub-arg 628 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COMMISSION REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS sub-arg 1321 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) A A. The CSRA Vested The MSPB With Authority To Adjudica sub-arg 694 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) B B. For At Least 19 Years, The MSPB Has Ruled That Fede sub-arg 1191 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) C C. The MSPB’s Rule Allowing The Consideration Of Prior sub-arg 981 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Holding That The MSPB sub-arg 2782 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits I.A A. Congress Has Expressly Provided That Judicial Revie sub-arg 2246 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits I.B B. Congress’s Withdrawal Of District Courts’ Authority sub-arg 1496 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits II.A A. Congress Intended That Relief Under Former Section sub-arg ❝ 1082 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits II.B B. The Inapplicability Of Section 1182(c) In Removal P sub-arg 2697 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits A A. Depictions That Are Virtually Indistinguishable Fro sub-arg 2487 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Reasons For Concluding That T sub-arg 3426 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits C C. The Provisions At Issue Are Not Unconstitutionally sub-arg 679 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits D D. The Provisions At Issue Are Not Substantially Overb sub-arg 754 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 224 By Its Terms Protects Attachments To Pr sub-arg 1050 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress Had Sound Policy Reasons For Including Com sub-arg 476 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Act’s Special Rate Provisions For Attachments “ sub-arg 1440 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Construction Of The Act Disre sub-arg 965 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) II II. THE POLE ATTACHMENTS ACT PROTECTS PROVIDERS OF WIR sub-arg 1177 — candidate
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - Brief (Merits) A A. The OSH Act is displaced only when another federal sub-arg 2028 — candidate
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - Brief (Merits) B B. No Coast Guard regulations cover the working condit sub-arg 1914 — candidate
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - Brief (Merits) C C. The Secretary’s interpretation of Section 4(b)(1) b sub-arg 1658 — candidate
United States v. Vonn - Brief (Merits) A A. The Omission Of Advice Required By Rule 11(c)(3) Is sub-arg 2867 — candidate
United States v. Vonn - Brief (Merits) B B. A Showing Of Plain Error In A Guilty Plea Colloquy sub-arg 1879 — candidate
United States v. Vonn - Brief (Merits) C C. A Reviewing Court Should Consider The Entire Record sub-arg 1475 — candidate
United States v. Vonn - Brief (Merits) D D. The District Court’s Rule 11(c)(3) Violation In Thi sub-arg ❝ 813 — candidate
Original: Kansas v. Colorado - Brief On Exceptions to the Third Report of the Special Master I I. THE CALCULATION OF DAMAGES FOR INJURIES TO KANSAS’S sub-arg 2104 — candidate
Original: Kansas v. Colorado - Brief On Exceptions to the Third Report of the Special Master II II. IT IS WITHIN THE COURT’S SOUND DISCRETION TO AWARD sub-arg 1471 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) I.A A. The Text Of The CWA Makes Clear That The Act’s Cove sub-arg 657 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) I.B B. The Legislative History Of The 1972 Act And The 197 sub-arg 1791 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) I.C C. The Corps’ Construction Of The Statutory Term “Wate sub-arg 1247 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) II.A A. The Protection Of Migratory Bird Habitat Furthers A sub-arg 796 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) II.B B. The Instant Case Involves Commercial Activity Havin sub-arg 685 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) II.C C. The Destruction Of Migratory Bird Habitat Has Subst sub-arg 394 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.1 1. Congress exhaustively studied the problem sub-arg 485 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E b. The Enduring Legacy of Governmental Discrimination: sub-arg 440 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E (i) Employment: Substantial evidence of employment dis sub-arg 208 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E (ii) Education: “[E]ducation is perhaps the most impor sub-arg 315 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E (iii) Voting and Political Access: Voting is the right sub-arg 462 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E (iv) Public Transportation: Individuals also reported sub-arg 171 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E (v) Law Enforcement: Persons with disabilities have al sub-arg 186 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E (vi) Institutionalization: Unconstitutional denials of sub-arg 77 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.3 3. The existence of state laws against disability disc sub-arg 839 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.4 4. Disability discrimination does not fall beyond Cong sub-arg 996 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits B.1 1. Discrimination on the basis of disability violates sub-arg 262 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits B.2.a. Dispa a. Disparate Impact: Petitioners thrice object (Pet. B sub-arg 132 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits B.2.b. Reaso b. Reasonable Accommodation: As petitioners note (Br. sub-arg 861 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits B.2.c c. sub-arg 239 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits B.3 3. The Disabilities Act’s coverage is as broad as nece sub-arg 261 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.A A. Section 109 Of The Clean Air Act Does Not Constitut sub-arg 863 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.B B. The Court Of Appeals Improperly Employed The Nondel sub-arg 1282 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.C C. EPA Has Recognized Limitations On Its Discretion To sub-arg 882 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits II.A A. EPA’s Preamble Statements Regarding Implementation sub-arg 593 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits II.B B. EPA’s Preamble Statements Do Not Constitute “Final” sub-arg 714 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits II.C C. EPA’s Preamble Statements Regarding Implementation sub-arg 685 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits III.A A. The Clean Air Act Authorizes EPA To Implement The R sub-arg 860 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits III.B B. Delaying Implementation Of The Revised NAAQS Until sub-arg 536 — candidate
Gitlitz v. Commissioner - Merits A A. The Discharge Of A Debt Is Not An Item Of “Income” sub-arg 1327 — candidate
Gitlitz v. Commissioner - Merits B B. The Discharge Of A Debt Of An Insolvent Subchapter sub-arg 4278 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits I.A A. The Text And Context Of Sections 108 And 109 Requir sub-arg 729 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits I.B B. The Evolution Of The 1970 NAAQS Provisions Confirms sub-arg 861 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits I.C C. Congress’s Direction That EPA Set NAAQS Based Solel sub-arg 546 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits I.D D. Congress’s Actions Since 1970 Confirm That EPA Has sub-arg 979 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits II.A A. ATA’s Supposed “Trilemma” Does Not Exist sub-arg 599 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits II.B B. The Clean Air Act’s Express Language Refutes ATA’s sub-arg 1904 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits II.C C. The Administrator Did Not Base Her NAAQS Decisions sub-arg 160 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits II.D D. Congress Has Resolved The Public Policy Question Of sub-arg 347 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits III III. EXPANDING THE RANGE OF FACTORS THAT EPA MAY CONSI sub-arg 488 — candidate
United States v. The Mead Corp. - Merits I I. THE CLASSIFICATION RULINGS ISSUED BY THE CUSTOMS SE sub-arg 2750 — candidate
United States v. The Mead Corp. - Merits II II. THE CUSTOMS SERVICE REASONABLY INTERPRETED THE STA sub-arg 878 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits I.A A. Intermediate Scrutiny Is Appropriate Where The Stat sub-arg 889 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits I.B B. Title III Is Subject To Intermediate Scrutiny Becau sub-arg 2183 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits I.C C. This Court’s Cases Do Not Require The Application O sub-arg 1364 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits II.A A. The Restriction On Use And Disclosure Furthers Sign sub-arg 2147 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits II.B B. The Restrictions On Use And Disclosure Do Not Unnec sub-arg 778 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits II.C C. Title III’s Restrictions On Use And Disclosure Do N sub-arg 637 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits I.A A. The Board’s Interpretation Is Longstanding And Wide sub-arg 726 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits I.B B. The Board’s Interpretation Is Consistent With The T sub-arg 358 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits I.C C. The Board’s Interpretation Furthers Section 2(11)’s sub-arg 1512 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits I.D D. The Board’s Interpretation Properly Accommodates Th sub-arg 508 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits I.E E. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Substituting Its Own sub-arg 535 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits II.A A. The Board’s Rule Accords With Principles Of Statuto sub-arg 658 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits II.B B. Practical Considerations Also Support The Board’s R sub-arg 563 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits III III. THE RNs WORKING AT CANEY CREEK ARE NOT SUPERVISOR sub-arg 1681 — candidate
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Fourth Circuit’s Result Is Inconsistent With Th sub-arg 1586 — candidate
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The FAA Does Not Support Any Limitation On the Reme sub-arg 1123 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The History And Purpose Of Exemption 5 Support Its sub-arg 1808 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Construing The Term “Intra-Agency Memorandums Or Le sub-arg 2148 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Compelled Disclosure Of Documents Like Those At Iss sub-arg 887 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Invoking The Tribes’ sub-arg 517 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Records At Issue Here Are Not Properly Characte sub-arg 1455 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Congress That Enacted Title VI Intended That Ag sub-arg 1480 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress Preserved And Ratified The Private Right o sub-arg 1451 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Procedures Identified In Section 602 For Agency sub-arg 1229 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Implication Of A Private Right Of Action For Injunc sub-arg 573 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) II.A A. This Court Has Upheld Federal Agencies’ Discriminat sub-arg 335 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Discriminatory-Effect Regulations Are Consisten sub-arg 841 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Congress Has Ratified The Discriminatory-Effect Reg sub-arg 1200 — candidate
United States v. Hatter - Merits I.A A. The Application Of A Nondiscriminatory Tax To Judic sub-arg ❝ 4380 — candidate
United States v. Hatter - Merits I.B B. Congress’s Extension Of Social Security Taxes To Ju sub-arg 566 — candidate
United States v. Hatter - Merits II II. ANY CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TERMINATED WHEN CONGR sub-arg 1037 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Congress Tailored The Provisions Of Section 1409 To sub-arg 2954 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Section 1409(a) Must Be Upheld If It Reflects A “Fa sub-arg 2544 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Section 1409 Effectively Serves Congress’s Valid Ob sub-arg 3696 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) II II. EVEN IF THE DISTINCTIONS DRAWN BY SECTION 1409 WER sub-arg 1192 — candidate
Lopez v. Davis - Merits A A. Section 3621(e)(2)(B) Commits To The Discretion Of sub-arg ❝ 1279 — candidate
Lopez v. Davis - Merits B B. The Bureau Of Prisons’ Categorical Denial Of Early sub-arg 1466 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) A A. The Attorney General’s Decision To Detain An Alien sub-arg 1335 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Congress has concluded that detention of a criminal sub-arg 725 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Congress’s authorization to detain dangerous aliens sub-arg 1199 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Petitioner’s prior long-time residency in this coun sub-arg 1856 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) C C. Detention Of Aliens Such As Petitioner Under Sectio sub-arg 2316 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits I.A A. The Second Clause Of 18 U.S.C. 1341 Does Not Requir sub-arg 2247 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits I.B B. The Scheme In This Case Violated The Second Clause sub-arg 1278 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits I.C C. The Indictment Charged And The Jury Necessarily Fou sub-arg 442 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits II.A A. The Louisiana Video Draw Poker Device Control Law V sub-arg 1000 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits II.B B. The State Has A Property Interest In Video Poker Li sub-arg 2752 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits II.C C. Congress’s Enactment Of 18 U.S.C. 1346 Has No Beari sub-arg 456 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits A A. Technological Observations Of The Home May Implicat sub-arg 690 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits B B. Observation From A Public Place Of An Area Exposed sub-arg 459 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits C C. The Use Of Technology To Observe An Area Exposed To sub-arg 880 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits D D. The Use Of The Thermal Imager In This Case Did Not sub-arg 505 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits E E. The Government’s Inference That The Heat It Observe sub-arg 751 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits F F. The Thermal Imager Is Not The Functional Equivalent sub-arg 1512 — candidate
Glover v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Strickland v. Washington Governs Claims Of Ineffect sub-arg 3458 — candidate
Glover v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Counsel’s Failure To Argue That Petitioner’s Money sub-arg 2894 — candidate
Glover v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Petitioner Was Not Prejudiced By Counsel’s Failure sub-arg ❝ 3709 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits I.A A. The James Test Confers Immunity From Liability For sub-arg 506 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits I.B B. The Court Of Appeals Properly Upheld The Government sub-arg 418 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits II.A A. The Entire Central Valley Project Is A Federal Floo sub-arg 782 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits II.B B. Congress Specified That The Friant Division Of The sub-arg 1444 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits II.C C. The Corps of Engineers’ Longstanding And Consistent sub-arg 614 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits II.D D. Petitioner’s Reliance On Gerlach Is Misplaced sub-arg 420 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits III.A A. Waters Released Into Madera Canal Cannot Be Segrega sub-arg 731 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits III.B B. The Madera Irrigation District Contract Expressly P sub-arg 518 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits III.C C. The Madera Canal Receives Water Intended Solely For sub-arg 730 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits IV.A A. The “Primary Purpose” Test Conflicts With The Text sub-arg 868 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits IV.B B. Petitioner’s “Primary Purpose” Test Finds No Suppor sub-arg 321 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits IV.C C. The “Primary Purpose” Test Would Deny The Governmen sub-arg 666 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits A A. This Court’s Decision In Custis Established That, A sub-arg 891 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits B B. Core Principles Governing Collateral Attack On Crim sub-arg 557 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits C C. Important Interests In Ease Of Administration And P sub-arg 1408 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits D D. Petitioner’s Other Reasons For Permitting His Indir sub-arg 1063 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 924(c)(1)(A)’s Language And Structure Indic sub-arg 713 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Brandishing And Discharging A Firearm Are Tradition sub-arg 658 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Legislative History of Section 924(c) Confirms sub-arg 475 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Neither The Rule Of Lenity Nor The Doctrine Of Cons sub-arg 374 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Includes Specification Of Mandatory Minimum Penalti sub-arg 882 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The Legislature May Reasonably Assign Mandatory Sen sub-arg 468 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Constitutional Values Served by Apprendi Do Not sub-arg 1139 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. History Casts No Doubt On The Constitutionality Of sub-arg 1057 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D.1 1. Not Permit Circumvention Of Apprendi sub-arg 374 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D.2 2. Provisions Would Undermine Sentencing Reform Effort sub-arg 1094 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.E E. Stare Decisis Supports McMillan’s Continuing Validi sub-arg 541 — candidate
United States v. Knights - Merits A A. Respondent’s Consent Extends By Its Terms To Search sub-arg 746 — candidate
United States v. Knights - Merits B B. Respondent’s Consent To Search Was Valid And Enforc sub-arg ❝ 3234 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits A A. COPA’s Harmful-to-Minors Standard Is Modeled On Sta sub-arg 1515 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits B B. Community Standards Are An Established Component Of sub-arg 455 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits C C. It Is Appropriate To Require A Nationwide Business sub-arg 1062 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits D D. The Harmful-To-Minors Test Significantly Circumscri sub-arg 899 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits E E. Community Standards Concerning What Is Harmful To M sub-arg 649 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits F F. COPA’s Reliance On Community Standards Does Not Und sub-arg 1079 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits G G. COPA’s Reliance On Community Standards Is Consisten sub-arg 392 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Interpreting Section 1367 To Apply To Nonconsenting sub-arg 344 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Interpreting Section 1367 As Inapplicable To Noncon sub-arg 1149 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Text, Legislative Record, And Underlying Purpos sub-arg 1581 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Most Courts And Commentators Have Read Section 1367 sub-arg 680 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) II.C C. A Narrow Construction Of Section 1367(d) Does Not F sub-arg 301 — candidate
United States v. Arvizu - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Reasonable-Suspicion Analysis Requires Consideratio sub-arg 1365 — candidate
United States v. Arvizu - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Categorical Approach To The R sub-arg 2342 — candidate
United States v. Arvizu - Brief (Merits) II II. THE INVESTIGATIVE STOP IN THIS CASE WAS LAWFUL sub-arg 657 — candidate
Verizon Maryland Inc v. Public Service Commission and United States v. Public Service Commission - Merits Brief FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S sub-arg 2469 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1.a. The 1 a. The 1966 compromise. sub-arg 587 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1.b. The 1 b. The 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act. sub-arg 525 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1.c c. The 1980 Tax Code Amendment. sub-arg 417 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2.b. Petit b. Petitioners’ Interpretation Would Create Anomalies sub-arg 1241 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1.a. The l a. The lookback period is the type of time limit that sub-arg 968 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1.b. Debto b. Debtors cannot claim a lack of diligence on the par sub-arg 164 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1.c c. Congressional purpose and public policy support tol sub-arg 194 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. A Uniform Rule of Tolling Should Be Adopted. sub-arg 567 — candidate
Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) A A. This Court’s Decision In Sure-Tan Does Not Preclude sub-arg 2881 — candidate
Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) B B. The Board’s Limited Back Pay Award In This Case Rea sub-arg 3393 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Plain Language Of Section 1437d(l)(6) Precludes sub-arg 441 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Section 1437d(l)(6) Does Not Require A Public Housi sub-arg 381 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Finding Ambiguity In sub-arg 1527 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Related Statutory Provisions Confirm That Section 1 sub-arg 1837 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Construing Section 1437d(l)(6) To Authorize Termina sub-arg 1028 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Legislative History Supports HUD’s Reading Of S sub-arg 1507 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Construing Section 1437d(l)(6) According To Its Ter sub-arg 529 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) II.E E. The Principle Of Constitutional Avoidance Has No Ap sub-arg 795 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) II.F F. Because HUD’s Interpretation Of Section 1437d(l)(6) sub-arg 243 — candidate
United States v. Craft - Brief (Merits) A A. A Spouse’s Interest In A Tenancy By The Entirety Is sub-arg 979 — candidate
United States v. Craft - Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Concluding That State sub-arg 2475 — candidate
United States v. Craft - Brief (Merits) C C. The Holding Of The Court Of Appeals Would Create Ir sub-arg 1116 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Commissioner Has Reasonably Construed The Act T sub-arg 2915 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Commissioner’s Interpretation Is Supported By t sub-arg 1737 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Construction Creates Precisel sub-arg 1023 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Reversal Of The Court Of Appeals’ Ruling Concerning sub-arg 207 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) II.B B. In Any Event, The Court Of Appeals Erred In Its Int sub-arg 2054 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) A A. The Due Process Clause Requires Notice Reasonably C sub-arg 358 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) B B. The Government’s Practice Of Sending A Prison Inmat sub-arg 1005 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) C C. Petitioner’s Conjecture That Prisons Receive Inmate sub-arg 917 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) D D. Petitioner’s Proposed Rule That The Government Must sub-arg 1976 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) E E. Petitioner Is Mistaken In Claiming That Inadequate sub-arg 915 — candidate
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta - Merits Brief I I. PETITIONER CANNOT PREVAIL ON ITS FACIAL CHALLENGE A sub-arg 1128 — candidate
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta - Merits Brief II.A A. CONGRESS HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN ELIMINATING D sub-arg 3830 — candidate
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta - Merits Brief II.B B. DOT’S DBE PROGRAM IS NARROWLY TAILORED sub-arg 3700 — candidate
Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. - Brief (Merits) I I. FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISION sub-arg 2386 — candidate
Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Congress Conditioned The States’ Participation In T sub-arg 2856 — candidate
Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II.B B. State Commissioners Are Subject To Suit In Their Of sub-arg 1748 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) A A. The Lodestar Method Best Reflects The Plain Languag sub-arg 1875 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) B B. The Text And Legislative History of Section 406(b) sub-arg 1035 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) C C. The Lodestar Method Produces A More Reasonable Resu sub-arg 898 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) D D. Using The Lodestar Method To Determine CourtRelated sub-arg 889 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) E E. Neither A Presumptive 25 Percent Fee Award Nor A Ri sub-arg 1025 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. A stockbroker commits fraud when he secretly sells sub-arg 1040 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. A stockbroker’s conversion of customer securities b sub-arg 1478 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) B B. Stockbroker Liability For Fraudulent Misappropriati sub-arg 677 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. There is a substantial governmental interest in pro sub-arg 1083 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. There is a substantial governmental interest in ens sub-arg 1001 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. There is a substantial governmental interest in bal sub-arg 1112 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Promotion of particular drugs reasonably distinguis sub-arg 1309 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The court of appeals erred in concluding that the a sub-arg 1206 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The advertising and solicitation limitations are ca sub-arg 741 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The alternatives suggested by the court of appeals sub-arg 386 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 2501 Requires That Claims Be Brought Within sub-arg 770 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Claims In This Case First Accrued When Congress sub-arg 1220 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. ELIHPA Was Not An Anticipatory Repudiation sub-arg 822 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Result Is Supported Both By T sub-arg 987 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.E E. This Court’s Decision In Mobil Does Not Support Pet sub-arg 694 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.F F. Petitioners’ Other Arguments Should Be Rejected sub-arg 496 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS UNDER THE JUST COMPENSATION CL sub-arg 1325 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) A A. The State’s Sovereign Immunity Is An Immunity From sub-arg 759 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) B B. An FMC Adjudication Differs Significantly, In Respe sub-arg 1816 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court’s Decision In Alden Does Not Suggest Tha sub-arg 814 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) D D. Because State Officials Retain Legal Authority Over sub-arg 762 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) E E. Even If Principles Of State Sovereign Immunity Prec sub-arg 396 — candidate
United States v. D'Italia - Brief (Merits) I I. A TAX ASSESSMENT HAS EVIDENTIARY IMPORTANCE, AND IS sub-arg 885 — candidate
United States v. D'Italia - Brief (Merits) II II. THE EMPLOYER’S SHARE OF THE FEDERAL INSURANCE CONT sub-arg 4368 — candidate
United States v. D'Italia - Brief (Merits) III III. THE IRS IS NOT REQUIRED TO CREDIT THE SOCIAL SECU sub-arg 556 — candidate
United States v. D'Italia - Brief (Merits) IV IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELYING ON ASSERTED sub-arg 916 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) A A. The Court’s Decision in Bill Johnson’s Is Entitled sub-arg 2080 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) B B. Professional Real Estate Investors Did Not Establis sub-arg 1937 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) C C. The Bill Johnson’s Court Reasonably Distinguished T sub-arg 1235 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) D D. The Holdings of Bill Johnson’s And Professional Rea sub-arg 2246 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) I.A A. A Defendant Does Not Have A Constitutional Right Un sub-arg 1095 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) I.B B. A Defendant May Enter An Intelligent And Voluntary sub-arg 2742 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Requiring The Prosecution To Disclose Material Excu sub-arg 2279 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) II II. A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT MAY VALIDLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT H sub-arg 521 — candidate
United States v. Drayton - Brief (Merits) A A. An Officer’s Encounter With A Citizen On A Bus Does sub-arg 1160 — candidate
United States v. Drayton - Brief (Merits) B B. Respondents Were Not Seized Or Otherwise Coerced To sub-arg 2835 — candidate
United States v. Drayton - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court of Appeals’ Decision Effectively Establis sub-arg 1645 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Full And Timely Payment Requirement Is A Fundam sub-arg 1118 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Bankruptcy Courts May Neither Exercise The Commissi sub-arg 928 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Cancellation Did Not Occur “Solely Because” Of Resp sub-arg 4325 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The D.C. Circuit’s Decision Distorts The Structure sub-arg 914 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The D.C. Circuit’s Decision Inappropriately Places sub-arg 936 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. A Sentence That Exceeds The Otherwise-Applicable St sub-arg 1343 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Imposition Of An Enhanced Sentence Based On A F sub-arg 1434 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. An Indictment’s Omission Of A Fact Required To Supp sub-arg ❝ 3423 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Error Of Imposing An Enhanced Sentence Based On sub-arg 924 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.E E. The Error Is Not A “Jurisdictional” Error, Immune F sub-arg 1450 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Error Did Not Affect Respondents’ Substantial R sub-arg 1224 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Error Did Not Seriously Affect The Fairness, In sub-arg 507 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) A A. ATF’s Appropriations Law Suspends ATF’s Authority T sub-arg 726 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 925(c) Has Never Authorized District Courts sub-arg 901 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) C C. The Appropriations Bar Effectively Precludes A Cour sub-arg 1099 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) D D. Judicial Consideration Of Applications For Relief F sub-arg 636 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) E E. Congress’s Restoration Of ATF’s Authority To Remove sub-arg 172 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) F F. The Court Of Appeals’ Reasoning Is Unpersuasive sub-arg 768 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. A Statutory Directive That An Agency Take Action By sub-arg 440 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Nothing In The Coal Act Suggests That Congress Inte sub-arg 2499 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) B B. The Sixth Circuit’s Reading Of The Coal Act’s Provi sub-arg 1122 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) C C. Congress’s Subsequent Enactment Of An Appropriation sub-arg 643 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) D D. The Commissioner’s Construction Of Her Authority To sub-arg 234 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) I I. UNDER THIS COURT’S PRECEDENTS, APPELLANTS’ SUIT IS sub-arg 850 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) II.A A. “Sampling” As Used In 13 U.S.C. 195 Is A Statistica sub-arg 792 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The History And Purposes Of 13 U.S.C. 195 Confirm T sub-arg 1141 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Census Bureau Has Consistently Interpreted Sect sub-arg 1491 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Bureau’s Use Of “Occupancy” And “Status” Imputa sub-arg 660 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The Text Of The Census Clause Does Not Prescribe A sub-arg 907 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The Drafting History Of The Constitution Confirms T sub-arg 1317 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Since The First Census, The Populations Used For Ap sub-arg 1393 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) III.D D. The Census Bureau’s Use Of Imputation In The Last F sub-arg 1028 — candidate
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - Brief (Merits) A A. The United States Is Immune From Suit For Money Dam sub-arg 1701 — candidate
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - Brief (Merits) B B. The 1960 Act Does Not Contain The Requisite Clear A sub-arg 2205 — candidate
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Concluding That Money sub-arg 3366 — candidate
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court Should Reaffirm That The Intent Of Congre sub-arg 438 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Relevant Statutory Provisions Do Not Authorize sub-arg 333 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Petitioners Abandoned Their Statutory Objection To sub-arg 620 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. No Plain Error Occurred sub-arg 241 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. sub-arg 700 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The Error Did Not Affect the Court’s Jurisdiction sub-arg 753 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.4 4. T he Er r o r Di d No t Se r i o u s l y Af f e ct sub-arg 617 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Outside The United States Territories, Article III sub-arg 334 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. Article III Did Not Apply to Petitioners’ Appeal sub-arg 1118 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Article III’s Structural Protections Were Not Viola sub-arg 1416 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Appointments Clause Does Not Affect The Validit sub-arg 800 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Petitioners Waived Their Constitutional Challenges sub-arg 1071 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.E E. The Presence Of A Non-Article III Judge On The Cour sub-arg 370 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) A A. The Gravamen Of A Conspiracy Is An Agreement To Acc sub-arg 692 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) B B. A Conspiracy May Be Initiated And Persist Regardles sub-arg 1149 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) C C. A Conspiracy Does Not Terminate Merely Because Achi sub-arg 1036 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) D D. The Ninth Circuit’s Holding That A Conspiracy Termi sub-arg 1452 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Congress Directed The Secretary Of The Treasury To sub-arg 610 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. Within This Basic Framework, the Secretary Determin sub-arg 976 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The Secretary’s Choice Among Alternative Methods of sub-arg 693 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. In Enacting The FSC Provisions In 1984, Congress Ra sub-arg 504 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. The Challenged Regulations Properly Implement the G sub-arg 465 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The “Principles Applicable Under Section 861” do no sub-arg 1050 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1.861-8(e)(3) Do Not Conflict With The “Grouping” Rule sub-arg 1041 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) I.A A. At Least As To Guillen’s PDA Action, The Washington sub-arg 1056 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Guillen May Challenge 23 U.S.C. 409 As Exceeding Co sub-arg 1347 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Text, Background, And Purposes Of Section 409 L sub-arg 1910 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Information Stored Only In A Computer-Based Storage sub-arg 740 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) III III. SECTION 409 DOES NOT EXCEED CONGRESS’S POWERS UND sub-arg 1131 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Rock, Sand, Dirt, And Biological Matter That Pe sub-arg 549 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Petitioners’ Activities Resulted In The “Addition” sub-arg 1590 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Petitioners’ Earthmoving Equipment Is A “Point Sour sub-arg 592 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Section 404(f) Indicates That Even Ordinary Plowing sub-arg 413 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Petitioners’ Deep Ripping Did Not Satisfy The Requi sub-arg 705 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioners’ Deep Ripping Is Subject To The Recaptu sub-arg 947 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) III III. THE LOWER COURTS CORRECTLY CALCULATED THE MAXIMUM sub-arg 979 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) A A. Congress Enacted The Family-Care Provision Of The F sub-arg 587 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Historic Discrimination By The States sub-arg 1060 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Enduring Unconstitutional Discrimination sub-arg 534 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The Congressional Response sub-arg 917 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) B.4.b. Congr b. Congress passed the FMLA to combat unconstitutional sub-arg 342 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) B.4.c c. The FMLA rests on an established record of genderba sub-arg 1644 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) B.4.d d. The existence of state leave laws and policies does sub-arg 795 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) C C. The Family And Medical Leave Act’s Family-Leave Pro sub-arg 1960 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) A A. The United States Is Immune From Suit Except As Cle sub-arg 1352 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) B B. The Tribe Has Not Shown The Violation Of Any Statut sub-arg 3834 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) C C. Federal Involvement With Respect To Indian Mineral sub-arg 1467 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) D D. The Common Law Of Trusts Does Not Supply A Right To sub-arg 1063 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Congress Determined That Criminal Aliens’ Flight Ri sub-arg 2989 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress’s Determinations About The Necessity Of Ma sub-arg 4091 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Zadvydas Supports A Determination That Section 1226 sub-arg 949 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Aliens Detained At The United States Border Have No sub-arg 446 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Mandatory Detention During Removal Proceedings Is P sub-arg 248 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Mandatory Detention Also Is Especially Warranted Wh sub-arg 304 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Section 1226(c) Could Not Be Held Unconstitutional sub-arg 206 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The AEDPA’s Text And Structure And This Court’s Pre sub-arg 1548 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Defining “Final” As Not Subject To Further Direct R sub-arg 923 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Treating A Judgment Of Conviction As “Final” When T sub-arg 1739 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioner’s Motion Under Section 2255 Was Timely sub-arg 258 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. A Claim That Is Not Raised On Direct Appeal General sub-arg 403 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Ineffective assistance claims often cannot be fairl sub-arg 880 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Applying the procedural default rule appropriately sub-arg 419 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Applying the procedural default rule to ineffective sub-arg 1246 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.4 4. The procedural default rule is not unworkable, unfa sub-arg 1913 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Court Of Appeals Correctly Concluded That Petit sub-arg 1911 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. This Court Should Affirm The Judgment On The Altern sub-arg 413 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Petitioners’ Construction Is Foreclosed By Constitu sub-arg 485 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Historical Practice Confirms That “Limited Times” D sub-arg 1682 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Petitioners’ Construction Of “Limited Times” In Lig sub-arg 1242 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Petitioners’ Concerns About Perpetual Protection Ar sub-arg 1013 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.E.1 1. Congress’s Longstanding Practice Of Providing Autho sub-arg 893 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.E.2 2. The CTEA’s Application To Existing Works Increases sub-arg 872 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.E.3 3. The CTEA’s Impact On International Trade Promotes P sub-arg 695 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The CTEA Survives First Amendment Scrutiny Consiste sub-arg 1091 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The CTEA Does Not Impermissibly Restrict Speech sub-arg 614 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Petitioners’ Novel Request For Intermediate Scrutin sub-arg 640 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) A A. The Statutory Text And Purposes Demonstrate That An sub-arg 1547 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) B B. Precedent Confirms That An “Investment Contract” Ma sub-arg 2314 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) C C. The SEC’s Longstanding Interpretation Of “Investmen sub-arg 812 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. The exclusion of fixed-return investments is not re sub-arg 969 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act Imposes Duties U sub-arg 1268 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The District Court Properly Focused Its Inquiry On sub-arg 896 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The District Court Did Not Construe Section 5 As In sub-arg 2147 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) II II. AS APPLIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE FACTS OF T sub-arg 400 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The Question Whether The District Court Properly Al sub-arg 414 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The District Court Acted Properly In Allowing Indiv sub-arg 494 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) I I. THE SECRETARY’S JUDGMENT REGARDING THE NATURE OF CO sub-arg 769 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Text And History Of The Contract Disputes Act D sub-arg 183 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. cates That It Applies Only To Transactions Involvin sub-arg 749 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. Consistent Statutory And Regulatory Practice Confir sub-arg 1831 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) II.B B. National Park Service Concession Contracts Do Not C sub-arg 2254 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Concession Contracts Do Not Implicate The Purposes sub-arg 713 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Recognizing That The CDA Does Not Cover Concession sub-arg 367 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Congress Has Historically Distinguished Between NPS sub-arg 514 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The Text Of The 1998 Act Reflects The Historical Di sub-arg 554 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Congress Has Ratified The National Park Service’s L sub-arg 921 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial sub-arg 331 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. In 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) and (c), Congress sought to pr sub-arg 365 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Section 1367(d) preserves the balance struck in Sec sub-arg 1013 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Section 1367(d) is a constitutionally permissible m sub-arg 1599 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Local governments have no constitutional immunity f sub-arg 436 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Congress’s reasons for enacting Section 1367(d) app sub-arg 161 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The Court’s decision in Raygor supports the applica sub-arg 484 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The Multiple Sales Database sub-arg 839 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The Trace Database sub-arg 861 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Release Of Individual Names And Addresses Contained sub-arg 965 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Privacy Interests That Would Be Invaded By Rele sub-arg 508 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Government May Establish The Applicability Of E sub-arg 477 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) II.B B. In Processing Respondent’s Request For Information sub-arg 510 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) II.C C. ATF Reasonably Determined, And Extensively Explaine sub-arg 1800 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Court Of Appeals Offered No Persuasive Ground F sub-arg 838 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Public Libraries Have Broad Discretion To Select Th sub-arg 1358 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) I.B B. A Library’s Broad Discretion To Make Collection Dec sub-arg 1553 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The District Court’s Application Of Strict Scrutiny sub-arg 790 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Even If A Library’s Connection Of Its Computers To sub-arg 870 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) I.E E. The Use of Filtering Software Is A Reasonable Metho sub-arg 1711 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) I.F F. The Use of Filtering Software Satisfies Strict Scru sub-arg 216 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) II.A A. CIPA Does Not Impose An Unconstitutional Condition sub-arg 1385 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) II.B B. A Library That Uses Filtering Software Does Not Imp sub-arg 189 — candidate
FEC v. Beaumont - Brief (Merits) A A. The Constitutional Validity Of Congress’s Prohibiti sub-arg 1425 — candidate
FEC v. Beaumont - Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Has Repeatedly Recognized That The Prohib sub-arg 1641 — candidate
FEC v. Beaumont - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Concluding That Secti sub-arg 1714 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Knock And Announce Rule Is Part Of The Fourth A sub-arg 312 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Ninth Circuit’s Rule Departs From The Required sub-arg 1125 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Property Damage Does Not Increase The Burden On Off sub-arg 392 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Need To Damage Property Does Not Increase The R sub-arg 386 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Requiring Officers To Consider The Need To Damage P sub-arg 534 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) III III. THE OFFICERS’ ENTRY INTO RESPONDENT’S APARTMENT A sub-arg 974 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) IV IV. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WOULD IMPOSE sub-arg 949 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) A A. Title II Of The Disabilities Act Is Valid Section 5 sub-arg 1519 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Congress Exhaustively Investigated Governmental Dis sub-arg 540 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Congress Amassed Voluminous Evidence Of Historic An sub-arg 947 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 (i) Education: “[E]ducation is perhaps the most impor- sub-arg 598 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 (ii) Voting: Because “the right to exercise the franch sub-arg 373 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 Access to the courts: The Fourteenth Amendment sub-arg 262 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 Access to government officials and proceedings sub-arg 244 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 Law enforcement: Persons with disabilities have also sub-arg 198 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 Child custody: This Court has long recognized that sub-arg 144 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 (vii) Institutionalization: The Constitution protects sub-arg 207 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 (viii) Zoning: Congress knew that Cleburne, where this sub-arg 115 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 (ix) Licensing: Petitioner erroneously argues (Br. 18- sub-arg 109 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 Public transportation: Individuals reported discri- sub-arg 176 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 (xi) Prison conditions: The Eighth Amendment protects sub-arg 111 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Other Evidence Confirms The Problem sub-arg 194 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Special Significance Of Discrimination In Governmen sub-arg 619 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.5 5. State Laws Provided Insufficient Protection sub-arg 519 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Title II’s Terms Are Tailored To The Constitutional sub-arg 1098 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Title II Is As Broad As Necessary sub-arg 482 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Substantive Due Process Analysis Requires Balancing sub-arg 687 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The government’s interest in adjudicating guilt on sub-arg 904 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The alternatives to bringing petitioner to trial ar sub-arg 767 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Antipsychotic medication, and no less-intrusive alt sub-arg 650 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. Antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate sub-arg 1778 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC ME sub-arg 432 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Medication Is Not Likely To Prejudice Fair Trial Ri sub-arg 503 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Post-Medication Procedures Ensure That Medication D sub-arg 1065 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) IV.A A. Antipsychotic Medication Is Substantially Likely An sub-arg 665 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) IV.B B. Antipsychotic Medication Is Medically Appropriate sub-arg 540 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) IV.C C. The Courts Below Appropriately Considered The Effec sub-arg 538 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 2244(b)(3)(E) Applies To A Section 2255 Mot sub-arg 518 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Section 2244(b)(3)(E) Applies To A Court Of Appeals sub-arg 1511 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Section 2244(b)(3)(E) Applies To An Appeal Affirmin sub-arg 1197 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. When a district court’s decision is not challenged sub-arg 797 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. Petitioner did not challenge the district court’s c sub-arg 1585 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.3 3. Petitioner had an opportunity and incentive to chal sub-arg 683 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. This Case Does Not Require The Court To Establish S sub-arg 1093 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) A A. The Commissioner’s Construction Of The Act Is Entit sub-arg 395 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) B B. The Commissioner’s Construction Is Supported By The sub-arg 497 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Support The Commissioner’s Distinct Treatment Of “P sub-arg 1391 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. This Court’s Decisions And Common Usage Contradict sub-arg 1414 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Congress Adopted The Definition Of Disability In Se sub-arg 905 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The Court Of Appeals’ Construction Of Section 423(d sub-arg 579 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Three Additional Decades Of Experience In The Disab sub-arg 460 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) D D. The Commissioner’s Longstanding Construction Serves sub-arg 1724 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Core Of The Fifth Amendment’s Protection Is The sub-arg 873 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Miranda Created A Rule Of Exclusion To Protect The sub-arg 675 — candidate
v. Mo. Municipal League - Brief (Merits) A A. Section 253(a) Does Not Preempt A State Law Allocat sub-arg 889 — candidate
v. Mo. Municipal League - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 253(a) Does Not Manifest A Clear Intent To sub-arg 1389 — candidate
v. Mo. Municipal League - Brief (Merits) C C. Congress’s Use Of The Term “Any Entity” In Section sub-arg 1113 — candidate
USPS v. Flamingo - Brief (merits) A A. Agencies And Instrumentalities Of The United States sub-arg 1088 — candidate
USPS v. Flamingo - Brief (merits) B B. The United States Postal Service Is A Federal Agenc sub-arg 1779 — candidate
USPS v. Flamingo - Brief (merits) C C. The Postal Service’s Sue-And-Be-Sued Clause Does No sub-arg 2468 — candidate
USPS v. Flamingo - Brief (merits) D D. Other Features Of The Antitrust Laws And The Postal sub-arg 1643 — candidate
Doe v. Chao - Brief (Merits) A A. Congress’s Waiver Of Sovereign Immunity For Automat sub-arg 1878 — candidate
Doe v. Chao - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory Text And Structure Restrict The Award sub-arg 3430 — candidate
Doe v. Chao - Brief (Merits) C C. The Legislative History Of The Privacy Act, Congres sub-arg 2000 — candidate
United States v. Galletti - Brief (Merits) A A. The Internal Revenue Code Does Not Require That A P sub-arg 3262 — candidate
United States v. Galletti - Brief (Merits) B B. California Partnership Law Does Not Preclude Collec sub-arg 622 — candidate
United States v. Galletti - Brief (Merits) C C. The Decision Of The Court Of Appeals Would Impede A sub-arg 316 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Reasoning Of Western Nuclear Is Equally Applica sub-arg 1306 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. That The Secretary Of The Interior’s Decision In Zi sub-arg 713 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Term “Coal And Other Minerals” In The StockRais sub-arg 1477 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Even If There Is A Difference Between “Minerals” An sub-arg 580 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Petitioners’ “Site-Specific” Theory Is Foreclosed B sub-arg 1058 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The Text And Structure Of The Pittman Act Demonstra sub-arg 447 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Petitioners’ “Site-Specific” Approach Would Require sub-arg 607 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.D D. Under Petitioners’ “Site-Specific” Approach, The Pr sub-arg 640 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.E E. Any Doubts About Whether Congress Intended A “Site- sub-arg 214 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) IV IV. WESTERN NUCLEAR SHOULD NOT BE OVERRULED sub-arg 1236 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. A number of this Court’s Establishment Clause cases sub-arg 431 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Notwithstanding the clarity of that state law, whic sub-arg 942 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Because Of The Mother’s Independent Control Over Ed sub-arg 478 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Lawsuit Is A Collateral Attack On The Pending S sub-arg 607 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Religious beliefs inspired settlement of the coloni sub-arg 472 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The Framers considered official acknowledgments of sub-arg 816 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Establishment Clause Permits Official Acknowled sub-arg 1212 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Pledge Of Allegiance, With Its Reference To A N sub-arg 745 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.D.1 1. The purpose of reciting the Pledge is to promote pa sub-arg 1075 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.D.2 2. The Pledge has the valid secular effect of promotin sub-arg 303 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.D.2.b. Recit b. Reciting the Pledge is not a religious exercise sub-arg 888 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.D.2.c c. sub-arg 1099 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) I I. FEE APPLICANTS UNDER SECTION 2412(d) MUST ALLEGE WI sub-arg 772 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Requirements Of Section 2412(d)(1)(B) Are Condi sub-arg 390 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner’s Relation-Back Rule Is Not Supported By sub-arg 760 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Edelman v. Lynchburg College Does Not Support Petit sub-arg 1588 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Policy Arguments Advanced In Support Of An Expa sub-arg 508 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Equitable Doctrines Do Not Excuse The Neglect Of Pe sub-arg 1105 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Petitioner’s Equitable Tolling Argument Was Not Pre sub-arg 327 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Irwin’s Rationales For Equitable Tolling Do Not App sub-arg 832 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) A A. The Restrictions On Political Party Fundraising Imp sub-arg 1624 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) B B. The Provisions Of Title I And Section 213 Of BCRA A sub-arg 2361 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) B The restrictions on state parties’ use of soft money f sub-arg 1796 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) B Title I’s solicitation restrictions reinforce Title I’ sub-arg 1444 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) B New FECA § 323(f )’s restrictions on state candidates sub-arg 361 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) C C. Title I Does Not Intrude Upon The Authority Of The sub-arg 1083 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) D D. Title I Does Not Intrude Impermissibly Upon The Abi sub-arg 398 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) E E. Title I Does Not Violate The Political Parties’ Rig sub-arg 557 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.A A. BCRA’s Electioneering-Communications Provisions Are sub-arg 125 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Regulated The Manner In Which Federal Political Act sub-arg 1350 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. BCRA’s Electioneering-Communications Provisions Wer sub-arg 1644 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. BCRA’s Electioneering-Communications Provisions Adv sub-arg 1317 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. BCRA’s Electioneering-Communications Provisions Are sub-arg 1641 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Plaintiffs’ Challenges To BCRA’s Source-Of-Funding sub-arg 26 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. tioneering Communications Does Not “Ban” Any Speech sub-arg 1028 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. Express-Advocacy Test As An Absolute Limit On Congr sub-arg 710 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.3 3. The Primary Definition Of “Electioneering Communica sub-arg 2749 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.4 4. The Primary Definition Of “Electioneering Communica sub-arg 477 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.5 5. BCRA’s Fallback Definition Of “Electioneering Commu sub-arg 843 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.D D. BCRA’s Disclosure Requirements With Respect To Elec sub-arg 896 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.E E. The District Court Correctly Dismissed Plaintiffs’ sub-arg 736 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The District Court Correctly Dismissed Plaintiffs’ sub-arg 293 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The District Court Correctly Dismissed Plaintiffs’ sub-arg 416 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) III.C C. The District Court Correctly Dismissed Plaintiffs’ sub-arg 799 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) III.D D. The Disclosure Requirements In BCRA § 504 Are Const sub-arg 484 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) III.E E. BCRA § 318, Which Prohibits Any Minor From Making A sub-arg 356 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) A A. This Court’s Decisions Recognize The Broad Power Of sub-arg 667 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The authority to conduct suspicionless border searc sub-arg 554 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The government has the authority to conduct suspici sub-arg 407 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. gas tanks which are often used to conceal the illeg sub-arg 297 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. A requirement of reasonable suspicion would undermi sub-arg 231 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) B.5 5. successful gas tank smuggling sub-arg 765 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Customs officials have always had the plenary autho sub-arg 636 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The authority to conduct suspicionless gas tank sea sub-arg 285 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) D D. Gas Tank Searches Involve A Minimal Intrusion On In sub-arg 923 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) E.1 1. The use of force in a gas tank search does not just sub-arg 497 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) E.2 2. The Ninth Circuit’s belief that a gas tank search p sub-arg 206 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) E.3 3. A gas tank search is not psychologically intrusive sub-arg 183 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE sub-arg 1195 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Under The Plain Language Of Sections 113(a)(5) And sub-arg 377 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.B B. A Permitting Authority That Has Not Reasonably Dete sub-arg 2901 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments That A BACT Determ sub-arg 1911 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Court Should Defer To EPA’s Interpretation That sub-arg 855 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY SUSTAINED EPA’S CO sub-arg 1839 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Text Of Section 330(a)(1) Does Not Author sub-arg ❝ 1702 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory Context Is Consistent With Congress’s sub-arg 1977 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) C C. The Legislative History Is Consistent With An Inten sub-arg 161 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) D D. Enforcing Section 330(a)(1) As Written Furthers Rea sub-arg 2487 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Protecting Against Unwarranted Intrusions On Person sub-arg 950 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. FOIA’s Privacy Protection Extends To Control By Clo sub-arg 762 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. There Is No General Public Interest In Further Prob sub-arg 1595 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Public Interest In Probing Foster’s Death Has B sub-arg 1268 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The Photographs Ordered Released Lack Any Substanti sub-arg 773 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The APA confines judicial review to challenges to f sub-arg 725 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Section 706(1) allows courts to compel only final a sub-arg 481 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The APA’s judicial review chapter reflects Congress sub-arg 592 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Section 706(1), like the APA’s other judicial revie sub-arg 1503 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Confining Section 706(1) to suits to compel final a sub-arg 1187 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Plaintiffs’ claim does not seek to compel final age sub-arg 547 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. Plaintiffs’ claim does not seek to enforce a mandat sub-arg 841 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Courts have no authority under Section 706(1) to or sub-arg 1220 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. A BLM land use plan is not a source of mandatory, n sub-arg 1401 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. The tasks identified in BLM’s land use plans genera sub-arg 604 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Proper Respondent To The Amended Habeas Petitio sub-arg 1307 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) I.B B. A Habeas Court Cannot Reach Respondents Located Bey sub-arg 1479 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Authority Of The Military To Seize And Detain E sub-arg 682 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Military’s Authority To Detain Enemy Combatants sub-arg 1393 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. The President’s Commander-in-Chief power squarely a sub-arg 1049 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. The President’s actions in this case are fully supp sub-arg 1491 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) II.C.3 3. Section 4001(a) does not constrain the military’s d sub-arg 1533 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Double Jeopardy Clause Has No Application To Pr sub-arg 756 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The text of amended Section 1301(2) speaks of resto sub-arg 98 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The legislative history of amended Section 1301(2) sub-arg 308 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Congress’s purpose to combat crime by non-member In sub-arg 471 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.B.4 4. Principles of constitutional avoidance do not justi sub-arg 283 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Congress’s plenary authority over Tribes permits th sub-arg 694 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. Duro does not suggest that the scope of tribal crim sub-arg 1051 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. Congress has been recognized to have the authority sub-arg 511 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.D.1 1. Congress may legislate distinct rules governing Tri sub-arg 910 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.D.2 2. Tribal prosecution of non-member Indians under amen sub-arg 938 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE WOULD NOT BAR THE UNITE sub-arg 367 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. This Court’s decisions establish that an error affe sub-arg 591 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) I.A.2.a. The N a. The Ninth Circuit’s standard is erroneous sub-arg 781 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) I.A.2.b. The E b. The Eleventh Circuit’s standard is erroneous sub-arg 856 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) I.B B. A Defendant Who Cannot Show That He Would Have Pers sub-arg 711 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) II II. RESPONDENT CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT HE WOULD HAVE PER sub-arg 1204 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Government Has A Compelling Interest In Shieldi sub-arg 527 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) I.B B. COPA Satisfies Reno v. ACLU’s Narrow Tailoring Requ sub-arg 371 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) I.C C. COPA Shares The Characteristics Of State HarmfulTo- sub-arg 1058 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) II.A A. COPA Requires Material To Be Viewed In Context sub-arg 923 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) II.B B. COPA Excludes Material That Has Serious Value For T sub-arg 702 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Commercial Purposes Limitation Is Narrowly Tail sub-arg 681 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) II.D D. COPA’s Affirmative Defenses Are Narrowly Tailored sub-arg 1199 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) II.E E. There Is No Alternative To COPA That Is Equally Eff sub-arg 853 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) III III. COPA IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY OVERBROAD sub-arg 489 — candidate
Rasul v. Bush Al Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) U U.S. COURTS LACK JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER CLAIMS FILED sub-arg 141 — candidate
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.A A. This Court Has Refused To Infer A Private Right Of sub-arg 904 — candidate
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Text And Statutory History Of Section 1350 Esta sub-arg 853 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Presidential Actions Are Exempt From NEPA’s Environ sub-arg 569 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Respondents Have Challenged Only FMCSA’s Determinat sub-arg 688 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. FMCSA’s Safety Rulemakings Did Not “Cause” The Alle sub-arg 324 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Congress’s Enactment Of Section 350 Did Not Require sub-arg 2161 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. FMCSA Was Not Required To Undertake A “Cumulative I sub-arg 626 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Presidential Action Is Exempt From The Conformity-R sub-arg 404 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Under EPA’s Implementing Rules, The Air-Quality Eff sub-arg 736 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Text Of Section 666 Unambiguously Defines The E sub-arg 403 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Purpose And Background Of Section 666 Confirm T sub-arg 563 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Section 666 Is Not Ambiguous sub-arg 229 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Congress Has The Authority To Protect Federal Spend sub-arg 656 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. Congress selected reasonable means of achieving its sub-arg 822 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Congress is not limited to protecting against corru sub-arg 541 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.3 3. This Court’s decisions in Lopez and Morrison lend n sub-arg 751 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Section 666 Is “Proper” Legislation Under The Const sub-arg 413 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D.1 1. exhaust Congress’s “necessary and proper” authority sub-arg 442 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D.2 2. Petitioner’s conditional funding arguments are with sub-arg 667 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. Section 666 Is At Most Subject To As Applied Chal sub-arg 872 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. By Its Terms, FACA’s Application Turns On The Forma sub-arg 715 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The De Facto Member Doctrine Is Inconsistent With F sub-arg 1033 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. This Court Should Reject The De Facto Member Doctri sub-arg 500 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The Discovery Ordered Below Was Precluded By The Co sub-arg 314 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Other Principles Of Judicial Review Of Executive Br sub-arg 947 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. The NEPDG’s Information-Gathering And PolicyDevelop sub-arg 1870 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The Decisions Below Cannot Be Reconciled With Publi sub-arg 1013 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Court Of Appeals Had Mandamus Jurisdiction sub-arg 799 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Court Of Appeals Had Appellate Jurisdiction sub-arg 450 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Petitioners’ Separation-Of-Powers Claims Are Not St sub-arg 657 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Section 878’s Text, Purpose, And History Make The S sub-arg 1357 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The Ninth Circuit’s Construction Is Inconsistent Wi sub-arg 1157 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality Is Not sub-arg 1480 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Applying The Presumption Against Extraterritorialit sub-arg 1669 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Improperly Denies Fede sub-arg 489 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The So-Called “Headquarters Doctrine” Does Not Excu sub-arg 824 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Ninth Circuit’s Application Of The Headquarters sub-arg 739 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Inverts The Constituti sub-arg 546 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Under New York v. Belton, Police Officers May Searc sub-arg ❝ 1898 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Custodial Arrest, And Not The Initiation Of Pol sub-arg 516 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. An Initiation-Of-Contact Limitation Has No Support sub-arg 878 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. An Initiation-Of-Contact Limitation Would Needlessl sub-arg 689 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. An Initiation-Of-Contact Limitation Is Likely To Co sub-arg 538 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. An Initiation-Of-Contact Rule Is Not Necessary To C sub-arg 1185 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court Of Appeals Correctly Concluded That The S sub-arg 1076 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Challenged Wartime Detention Falls Squarely Wit sub-arg 1663 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Hamdi’s Detention Is Bolstered By, And By No Means sub-arg 1184 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Hamdi’s Detention Is Consistent With Article 5 Of T sub-arg 406 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Executive’s Determination That An Individual Is sub-arg 827 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Record Demonstrates That Hamdi Is An Archetypal sub-arg 1964 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Challenged Wartime Detention At Issue Is Lawful sub-arg 453 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Neither The Suspension Clause, The Habeas Statutes, sub-arg 648 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Hamdi Was Not Entitled To Any Automatic Or Immediat sub-arg 1930 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) IV IV. THE ALTERNATIVE PROCEEDING ENVISIONED BY THE DISTR sub-arg ❝ 950 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Executive and Legislative Branches Have Compreh sub-arg 481 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Executive and Legislative Branches Have Plenary sub-arg 854 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Parole Does Not Enhance An Excluded Alien’s Rights sub-arg 1004 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Statutory Text and Structure Support the Secret sub-arg 1358 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Legislative History Supports the Secretary’s De sub-arg 681 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The Six-Month Cap Adopted in Zadvydas Does Not Appl sub-arg 116 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) B.3.b. Exten b. Extending Zadvydas to excluded aliens would create, sub-arg 1702 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) C C. The Existing Parole Scheme Adequately Protects The sub-arg 1777 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Executive and Legislative Branches Have Compreh sub-arg 481 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Executive and Legislative Branches Have Plenary sub-arg 854 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Parole Does Not Enhance An Excluded Alien’s Rights sub-arg 998 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Statutory Text and Structure Support the Secret sub-arg 1368 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Legislative History Supports the Secretary’s De sub-arg 684 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) B.3.a. Prese a. Preserving the Secretary’s Detention Authority Serv sub-arg 1044 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) B.3.b. Exten b. Extending Zadvydas to excluded aliens would create, sub-arg 1668 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) C C. The Existing Parole Scheme Adequately Protects The sub-arg 1763 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.A A. The Tax Treatment Of The Contingent-Fee Portion Of sub-arg 778 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.B.1 1. The Assignment-Of-Income Doctrine Ensures Taxation sub-arg 1183 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.B.2 2. As Most Courts Of Appeals To Consider The Question sub-arg 868 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.C.1 1. The Contingent Nature Of The Fee Provides No Basis sub-arg 519 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.C.2 2. A Contingent Fee Arrangement Does Not Provide The A sub-arg 1159 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.C.3 3. A Taxpayer’s Motive In Entering A Contingent Fee Ag sub-arg 292 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.C.4 4. The Court Of Appeal’s Concern About “Double Taxatio sub-arg 404 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) II.A A. California Law Confirms That The Entire Amount Of R sub-arg 437 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) II.B B. Oregon Law Confirms That The Entire Taxable Amount sub-arg 1078 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Tribal Contractors Step Into The Shoes Of A Federal sub-arg 1223 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. IHS allocates its entire Indian Health Services lum sub-arg 429 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The Secretary was not required to make funds for in sub-arg 1130 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. The Secretary did not reduce CSC funding in order t sub-arg 722 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.4 4. The Secretary was not required to pay for CSCs with sub-arg 516 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. The text and history of the availability clause and sub-arg 1347 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The Tribes’ interpretation of the appropriations ac sub-arg 422 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Section 314 Establishes That The Secretary Was Not sub-arg 416 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Tribes’ Interpretation Of Section 314 Is Incorr sub-arg 804 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The First Amendment Permits The Government To Engag sub-arg 1205 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Generic Advertising Under The Beef Act Is Governmen sub-arg 1272 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Court of Appeals Erred In Holding That The Gove sub-arg 2096 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The District Court’s Conclusion That Beef Act Speec sub-arg 1224 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) II II. THE BEEF ACT SATISFIES INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY AND I sub-arg 1461 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) Makes Clear That Proo sub-arg 784 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) U U.S.C. 1956(h) Does Not Contain An Express Overt Act R sub-arg 257 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 1956(h) Is Not Meaningfully Distinguishable sub-arg 3148 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Congress’s Definition Of The Elements Of The Offens sub-arg 586 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply To Unambiguous St sub-arg 195 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) TOTTEN V. UNITED STATES CATEGORICALLY BARS RESPONDENTS sub-arg 90 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) A A. That The United States Has Wrongfully Refused To Pa sub-arg 331 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Espionage Activities Are Essential To National Secu sub-arg 476 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. sub-arg 1261 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The Secrecy Implicit In An Espionage Relationship F sub-arg 864 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) C C. Would Interfere With The Constitutional Role Of The sub-arg 1089 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) D D. Constitutional Claims sub-arg 1127 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) E.1 1. The Ninth Circuit Erroneously Concluded That Reynol sub-arg 727 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) E.2 2. Requiring The CIA To Assert The State Secrets Privi sub-arg 1739 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) F F. Circuit’s Decision sub-arg 1145 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) A A. Congress May Constitutionally Regulate Activity Tha sub-arg 891 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) B B. The CSA Comprehensively Regulates The Market In Con sub-arg 883 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Congress reasonably found that intrastate drug manu sub-arg 2360 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Federally unregulated local manufacture, distri-but sub-arg 736 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. Respondents are engaged in economic activity sub-arg 912 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. The purported medical purposes of respondents’ acti sub-arg 1050 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior t sub-arg 880 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Congress waived the United States’ immunity from su sub-arg 1117 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Westlands Contract, By Its Terms, Does Not Gran sub-arg 114 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. contracting parties express their intention to conf sub-arg 958 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Petitioners concede that the Westlands Contract doe sub-arg 905 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Article 15 of the Westlands Contract does not grant sub-arg 363 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. petitioners cite do not grant petitioners an implie sub-arg 390 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. lands Contract do not imply that petitioners are en sub-arg 1055 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. right to sue the United States for breach of the We sub-arg 328 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.5 5. issue-preclusive effect on the matters before this sub-arg 765 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The STJ’s Recommended Findings Were Not Reversed Or sub-arg 692 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Petitioners’ Claim Of Improper Influence On STJ Cou sub-arg 453 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. As A Matter Of Law, Judicial Misconduct Will Not Be sub-arg 906 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Disclosure Of An “Original” Report Could Not Benefi sub-arg 420 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. The Tax Court Judge, Not The STJ, Determines Facts sub-arg 252 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The Tax Court Is Not Required By Its Rules To Revie sub-arg 1051 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Tax Court’s Practice Is Neither Unprecedented N sub-arg 1889 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Deference To An STJ’s Credibility Determinations Is sub-arg 821 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Disclosure Is Not Required By Mathews v. Eldridge sub-arg 510 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Disclosure Is Not Required Under Section 7482(a)(1) sub-arg 506 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Disclosure Is Not Required Under Section 7459 Or 74 sub-arg 757 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) III.C C. There Is No Common Law Right To Disclosure Of STJ R sub-arg 258 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The word “use” does not have a mens rea component sub-arg 1799 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The fact that “attempted use” and “threatened use” sub-arg 323 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Offense Of Drunk Driving Resulting In Injury Ne sub-arg 746 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) II.A A. By Its Nature, Drunk Driving Resulting In Injury In sub-arg 522 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Question Whether Drunk Driving Resulting In Inj sub-arg 1029 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) III III. THE DEFINITION OF “SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSE” IN 8 sub-arg ❝ 1076 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 1231(b)(2)(E)(i)-(vi) Of Title 8 Authorizes sub-arg 422 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Provisions Surrounding Section 1231(b)(2)(E)(iv sub-arg 1984 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) I.C C. To The Extent 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(2)(E)(iv) Is Ambiguo sub-arg 395 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) II.A A. A Categorical Statutory Ban On Removal Without The sub-arg 621 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner’s Proposed Categorical Bar On Removal Wi sub-arg 1124 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) III.A A. As A Matter Of International Comity, Executive Bran sub-arg 353 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The Judicial And Administrative Decisions On Which sub-arg 969 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Petitioner Identifies No Precedent Suggesting The E sub-arg 689 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of The Wire Fraud Statute Covers Schemes T sub-arg 483 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Revenue Rule’s Core Principle Bars A Foreign So sub-arg 329 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Ancillary Principles Drawn From The Revenue Rul sub-arg 680 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. A Wire Fraud Prosecution Alleging A Scheme To Defra sub-arg 1115 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. Separation-of-Powers Concerns Do Not Justify Applic sub-arg 847 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. Difficulties In Determining Foreign Tax Law Do Not sub-arg 418 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.3 3. The Common Law Revenue Rule Is Not Subject To Expan sub-arg 319 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) E.1 1. The Common Law Defined Fraud To Include Schemes To sub-arg 680 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) E.2 2. The Inapplicability Of The Wire Fraud Statute To St sub-arg 651 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) E.3 3. The Revenue Rule Does Not Defeat A Showing By The U sub-arg 183 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) F.1 1. The Smuggling Statute Does Not Limit The Scope Of T sub-arg 545 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) F.2 2. The United States-Canada Treaty Does Not Limit The sub-arg 322 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Taylor Does Not Prohibit Sentencing Courts From Con sub-arg 319 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Examining The Complaint Application And Incorporate sub-arg 1409 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Considering Court Documents To Determine If Guilty sub-arg 715 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The Court Of Appeals’ Test Does Not Reverse The Bur sub-arg 654 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Doctrine Of Constitutional Doubt Does Not Requi sub-arg 1461 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Compel Adoption Of Peti sub-arg 376 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Continuing Validity Of Almendarez-Torres Is Not sub-arg 830 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) U.1 1. Petitioner’s interpretation is inconsistent with th sub-arg 1141 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) U.2 2. Petitioner’s interpretation undermines the purpose sub-arg 1094 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) U.3 3. Under the correct interpretation of paragraph 6(4), sub-arg 519 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) U.4 4. The government’s interpretation does not prevent a sub-arg 1052 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Even If The “Fact[] Supporting The Claim” Whose Imp sub-arg 900 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) U U.S.C. 2255 Para. 6(4), Petitioner’s Section 2255 Moti sub-arg 531 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Accommodations respect, rather than endorse, religi sub-arg 319 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. RLUIPA ensures equality in accommodation practices sub-arg 622 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The power to accommodate is broader than the Free E sub-arg 146 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Government may accommodate religion alone sub-arg 943 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. RLUIPA balances the interests of the religious adhe sub-arg 338 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Evenhanded religious accommodation is particularly sub-arg 1153 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Stare decisis forecloses the argument sub-arg 348 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. RLUIPA leaves States free to make accommodation cho sub-arg 496 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.C.3.a. a. sub-arg 361 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.C.3.b. Secon b. Second, focus on the original purpose of the Establ sub-arg 575 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) II.A A. RLUIPA Promotes The General Welfare sub-arg 282 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) II.B B. RLUIPA Provides Unambiguous Notice Of Its Funding C sub-arg 671 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) II.C C. RLUIPA’s Spending Condition Is Reasonably Related T sub-arg 637 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) III III. WHEN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENT I sub-arg 541 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) IV.A A. The Tenth Amendment sub-arg 498 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) IV.B B. The Eleventh Amendment sub-arg 93 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) A A. The Requirements Of Apprendi Apply To A Fact That I sub-arg 1606 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The functions performed by the Sentencing Commissio sub-arg 1772 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Sentencing Guidelines bear no resemblance to a sub-arg 1853 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court Has Consistently Recognized The Distinct sub-arg 1980 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) D D. If Blakely Would Require That A Guidelines Range Be sub-arg 1322 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Severability Analysis Turns On The Intent Of The Le sub-arg 749 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Congress Would Not Have Intended The Guidelines Sys sub-arg 3682 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Administering Jury Factfinding Under The Guidelines sub-arg 923 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Conversion Of The Sentencing Guidelines Into “E sub-arg 893 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) II.E E. The Appropriate Remedy Would Be To Hold The Guideli sub-arg 880 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The FCC reasonably classified cable modem service a sub-arg 475 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The FCC reasonably determined that, insofar as cabl sub-arg 483 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The FCC reasonably determined that cable modem serv sub-arg 1492 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The FCC’s Conclusion Is Supported By The Policies O sub-arg 610 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Respondents’ Other Arguments Should Be Rejected sub-arg 1155 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) II II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN REFUSING TO REVIEW THE sub-arg 1819 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The term “corruptly” is similarly defined in other sub-arg 1188 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Petitioner’s criticisms of the lower courts’ defini sub-arg 2002 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The term “corruptly” does not require “proof of imp sub-arg 1381 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The term “corruptly” does not require “consciousnes sub-arg 718 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Neither The Rule Of Lenity, The Doctrine Of Constit sub-arg 905 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Petitioner’s Proposed “Nexus” Requirement Should Be sub-arg 1072 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner’s Challenge To The District Court’s “Off sub-arg 904 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of Section 2255 Para. 6(3) Unambiguously B sub-arg 472 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The “If ” Clause In Paragraph 6(3) Does Not Support sub-arg 902 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. What court may decide that the right is retroactive sub-arg 398 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. When may a court decide that the right is retroacti sub-arg 1200 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The date specified in the main clause is unaffected sub-arg 199 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Fact That Many Second Or Successive Section 225 sub-arg 541 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Limitations Period In Paragraph 6(3) Of One Yea sub-arg 1514 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Prohibition On Dispensing Controlled Substances sub-arg 910 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The language of the CSA demonstrates that Congress sub-arg 650 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The Attorney General’s interpretation of the phrase sub-arg 922 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Controlled Substances Act Has A Uniform Meaning sub-arg 3518 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Controlled Substances Act Does Not Intrude Upon sub-arg 1783 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Presumption Against Preemption Of State Law Fur sub-arg 436 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Additional Reasons Given By The Court Of Appeal sub-arg 1474 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) I.A A. The Walking Time At Issue Is Compensable Under The sub-arg 1268 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) I.B B. The Department Of Labor’s Regulations Confirm The C sub-arg 1699 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) I.C C. The Secretary’s Position Is Consistent With The Pur sub-arg 1080 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) I.D D. The Amount Of Time Devoted To Donning And Doffing D sub-arg 930 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) II II. THE WAITING TIME AT ISSUE IS COMPENSABLE BECAUSE R sub-arg 670 — candidate
United States v. Olson - Brief (Merits) A A. THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT WAIVES THE UNITED STATE sub-arg 1959 — candidate
United States v. Olson - Brief (Merits) B B. THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CONTRARY TO sub-arg 3201 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Higher Education Act’s Abrogation Of All Statut sub-arg 488 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Higher Education Act’s Abrogation Of All Statut sub-arg 1650 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 207 Of the Social Security Act Does Not For sub-arg 928 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. A Ten-Year Limit On Social Security Offsets Would I sub-arg 985 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Adequate Safeguards Protect Social Security Benefic sub-arg 583 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Corps And EPA Have Reasonably Defined The CWA T sub-arg 2341 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Corps And EPA Have Reasonably Defined The CWA T sub-arg 1272 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Application Of The CWA To Petitioners’ Wetlands Is sub-arg 940 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Application Of The CWA To Wetlands Adjacent To Trib sub-arg 1077 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) A A. Respondents Bear The Burden Of Proving Entitlement sub-arg 927 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. DMT Preparations are Dangerous and Susceptible to A sub-arg 373 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Preventing the Harms Caused by DMT Preparations is sub-arg 119 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Congress’s Findings Satisfy RFRA and Preclude Indiv sub-arg 220 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.3 First, Congress did not just find that DMT was “dan- sub-arg 190 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.3 Second, the CSA cannot function with its necessary sub-arg 355 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.3 Third, the court of appeals’ foundational premise that sub-arg 568 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.3 Fourth, and relatedly, like the efforts to obtain medi sub-arg 263 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.3 Fifth, implicit in the preliminary injunction’s 36 sep sub-arg 261 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Tribal Use of Peyote is Distinct sub-arg 479 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.5.b. Congr b. Congress’s judgments concerning DMT and its prepara sub-arg 56 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.5.b. Congr (1) Hoasca’s harmfulness: The district court ac- sub-arg 652 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The Convention Bans Hoasca sub-arg 670 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Compliance with the Convention is a Compelling Inte sub-arg 1160 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The CSRA Precludes Judicial Review Of Grievances Co sub-arg 2791 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The 1994 Amendments To The CSRA Did Not Confer A Ri sub-arg 1958 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The CSRA Provides Comprehensive Procedures For Reso sub-arg 781 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner May Not Circumvent The CSRA’s Mechanisms sub-arg 2275 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The CSRA Would Not Preclude Judicial Review Of A Co sub-arg 1476 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) A A. The Solomon Amendment Is A Carefully Tailored Exerc sub-arg 685 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Solomon Amendment does not affect an educationa sub-arg 300 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Solomon Amendment does not force institutions t sub-arg 653 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. cause an organization asserts that it is sub-arg 159 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Dale is also inapplicable because institutions can sub-arg 396 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The compelled speech doctrine applies when an indiv sub-arg 247 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The Solomon Amendment does not force an institution sub-arg 386 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. not support its compelled speech holding sub-arg 713 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. First Amendment right to exclude from its property sub-arg 285 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) C.5 5. The compelled speech doctrine also does not apply b sub-arg 187 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. A denial of equal access is not “speech” sub-arg 625 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. The Solomon Amendment satisfies the O’Brien standar sub-arg 214 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) D.3 3. Congress reasonably concluded that equal access to sub-arg 773 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) D.4 4. A further evidentiary showing is particularly unwar sub-arg 167 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) E E. The Solomon Amendment Does Not Impose An Unconstitu sub-arg 764 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) A A. Prison Administration Is The Relevant Context sub-arg 1292 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) B.1 1. Title II responds to a proven record of unconstitut sub-arg 263 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) B.2 2. Congress had substantial evidence of unconstitution sub-arg 1862 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) B.3 3. Court decisions and federal enforcement efforts con sub-arg 498 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) B.4 4. That extensive pattern of unconstitutional treatmen sub-arg 771 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) C.1 1. The constitutional harm addressed is grave sub-arg ❝ 1045 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) C.2 2. The problem is entrenched and intractable sub-arg 372 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) C.3 3. Title II’s terms are sensitive to the unique securi sub-arg 1491 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) D D. Title II Is Constitutional Even If Evaluated In A N sub-arg 580 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) I.A A. This Court Has Recognized The Immediate Appealabili sub-arg 782 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress’s Specification In Section 2676 That A Pri sub-arg 1809 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Under The Plain Language Of The Judgment Bar, The P sub-arg 1431 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Application Of The Judgment Bar In This Case Is Con sub-arg 2026 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. The court of appeals’ premise of a clear distinctio sub-arg 960 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. The substantive nature of Section 2680’s exceptions sub-arg 1391 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Section 1231(a)(5) and related statutes reflect a c sub-arg 1582 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Petitioner errs in relying on an asserted negative sub-arg 1821 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Petitioner’s remaining arguments under step one of sub-arg 645 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The Court can decide that Section 1231(a)(5) applie sub-arg 309 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Because Section 1231(a)(5) regulates the manner of sub-arg 1257 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) B.2.a. Secti a. Section 1231(a)(5)’s denial of discretionary relief sub-arg 1956 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) B.2.b. Petit b. Petitioner’s retroactivity claim materially differs sub-arg 869 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) B.2.c c. Petitioner’s actions after his illegal reentry cann sub-arg 1132 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Record Does Not Support Petitioners’ Claim That sub-arg 403 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Conclusion That The CWA Encompasses “Adjacent W sub-arg 1030 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. CWA Coverage Of Wetlands Separated From “Adjacent” sub-arg 536 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The Corps And EPA Have Permissibly Adopted A Classw sub-arg 819 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) A.5 5. Proof Of A Hydrologic Connection Between Wetlands A sub-arg 1033 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) B B. Application Of The CWA To Wetlands Separated By A B sub-arg 834 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of The Fourth Amendment Makes Clear That T sub-arg 718 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The policy considerations on which the Ninth Circui sub-arg 1729 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The First Circuit decisions on which the Ninth Circ sub-arg 625 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The Ninth Circuit’s rule cannot be justified on the sub-arg 584 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) C C. Even If An Anticipatory Search Warrant That Does No sub-arg 1022 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON RESPON sub-arg 90 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Special Considerations Govern Constitutional Challe sub-arg 668 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) I.B B. A Claim Of Retaliatory Prosecution Requires An Obje sub-arg ❝ 2175 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Standard Disregards The Speci sub-arg 1662 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) II II. THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST R sub-arg 1455 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) A A. Appellant’s As-Applied Constitutional Challenge Is sub-arg 1596 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) B B. Acceptance Of Appellant’s As-Applied Challenge To B sub-arg 1835 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) C C. Even If Appellant Could Demonstrate That The Advert sub-arg 1894 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) D D. Appellant’s Offer To Finance The Advertisements At sub-arg 1047 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) A A. Because The Federal Tort Claims Act Is A Waiver Of sub-arg 561 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Dictionary definitions of “transmission” include de sub-arg 408 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Historical and contemporary usage of “transmission” sub-arg 480 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The context and structure of the postal exception e sub-arg 175 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.1.a. The t a. The text’s plain meaning sub-arg 122 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.1.b. The t b. The text’s legislative evolution sub-arg 587 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.1.c c. The exception’s purpose sub-arg 406 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.2.b. The t b. The telegraph analogy is of no help to petitioner sub-arg 602 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The historical and logical distinction between peti sub-arg 2122 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. Tort claims based on the manner in which mail is de sub-arg 1246 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) I I. THIS PRE-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO PETITIONER’S MILITARY C sub-arg 859 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Congress Has Authorized The Use Of Military Commiss sub-arg 1412 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Constitution Authorizes The President To Establ sub-arg 820 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Al Qaeda’s Wholesale Disregard For The Law Of War D sub-arg 833 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.D.1 1. Military commissions may be and long have been conv sub-arg 176 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.D.2 2. The offense of conspiracy may be and long has been sub-arg 318 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.D.3 3. As a non-citizen enemy combatant, petitioner may be sub-arg 353 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.D.4 4. Petitioner’s treaty-based objections lack merit sub-arg 3160 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.E E. Petitioner Does Not Enjoy The Protections Of Our Co sub-arg 98 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The Procedures Established For Petitioner’s Militar sub-arg 968 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Does Not Apply T sub-arg 473 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) A A. The Right To Counsel Of Choice Is Qualified sub-arg 553 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Sixth Amendment is not violated absent an adver sub-arg 333 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. A defendant has the burden to show prejudice from t sub-arg 588 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. A presumption of prejudice is not warranted sub-arg 759 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. The Seventh Circuit’s “adverse effect” standard pro sub-arg 747 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The qualified right to counsel of choice is not so sub-arg 591 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The court of appeals’ reasoning is flawed sub-arg 1369 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I.A A. A Statute That Regulates Abortion, But Lacks A Heal sub-arg 1719 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Congressional Findings On Constitutionally Relevant sub-arg 597 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Congress’s Findings On The Medical Necessity Of Par sub-arg 1660 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Congress’s Findings On The Medical Necessity Of Par sub-arg 2840 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Even Assuming That Partial-Birth Abortion Has Margi sub-arg 663 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I.D D. To The Extent That The Court Believes That Stenberg sub-arg 395 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Act Is Not Unconstitutionally Overbroad sub-arg 914 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Act Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague sub-arg 504 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) III III. BECAUSE THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL, THE COURT NEED sub-arg 181 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Parties Are Presumptively Bound By Principles Of Wa sub-arg 573 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Speedy Trial Act Does Not Eliminate The Doctrin sub-arg 589 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Ordinary principles of judicial estoppel preclude p sub-arg 1128 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The Act does not manifest an intent to preclude the sub-arg 1839 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. Alternatively, this Court should remand so that the sub-arg 320 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Period Between August 23, 2000, And March 7, 20 sub-arg 838 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Any Error In Not Making A More Complete Record On T sub-arg 1543 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. At Common Law, Duress Was An Excuse To Criminal Con sub-arg 1053 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Substantial Practical Considerations Support Placin sub-arg 1371 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The “More Recent Common Law” Does Not Support Requi sub-arg 2367 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Placing The Burden On The Defendant To Establish Du sub-arg 1669 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Petitioners Have Failed To Demonstrate That The Reg sub-arg 305 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Petitioners’ Predictions Concerning The Possible In sub-arg 952 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Petitioners’ Accounts Of Previous Regulatory Undert sub-arg 344 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Key Provisions Of The CAA Cannot Coherently Be Appl sub-arg 689 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Various Federal Statutes Reflect Congress’s Intent sub-arg 1105 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Regulation Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Within The U sub-arg 326 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II.D D. EPA’s Interpretation Of The CAA’s Text Is Reasonabl sub-arg 727 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Federal Agencies Have Broad Discretion To Decline T sub-arg 728 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Section 202(a)(1) Of The CAA Does Not Impose Any Ti sub-arg 1181 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) III.C C. EPA’s Denial Of The Rulemaking Petition In This Cas sub-arg 1198 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Based on information that he had acquired as a Rock sub-arg 792 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. An individual need not personally observe the prepa sub-arg 332 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Determinations concerning the specificity with whic sub-arg 852 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. A relator may qualify as an “original source” even sub-arg 2363 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The government’s intervention in this case provided sub-arg 574 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Petitioners’ construction of 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(B sub-arg 602 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Before Filing His Initial Complaint, Stone Voluntar sub-arg 448 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) I.A A. A Statute That Regulates Abortion, But Lacks A Heal sub-arg 1239 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) I.B.1 1. Congressional Findings On Constitutionally Relevant sub-arg 451 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) I.B.2 2. Congress’s Findings On The Medical Necessity Of Par sub-arg 246 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) I.B.3 3. Congress’s Findings On The Medical Necessity Of Par sub-arg 1677 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) I.C C. A Statute That Prohibits Partial-Birth Abortion Doe sub-arg 751 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) II.A A. The Act Is Not Unconstitutionally Overbroad sub-arg 1674 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) II.B B. The Act Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague sub-arg 1171 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ REMEDIAL ANALYSIS IS FUNDAM sub-arg 2102 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Secretary’s methodology is consistent with the sub-arg 1763 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Petitioner’s interpretation of the statute conflict sub-arg 993 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Petitioners’ interpretation of the statute is incon sub-arg 1010 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The statutory history demonstrates that Congress en sub-arg 529 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) B B. The Secretary’s Methodology Is Based On A Reasonabl sub-arg 321 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) C C. The Secretary’s Regulations Are Entitled To Deferen sub-arg 658 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Availability Of A Precisely Drawn, Specific Rem sub-arg 1310 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Congress provided for expeditious resolution of Sec sub-arg 1164 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Congress understood that the availability of any ot sub-arg 517 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Congress created a detailed, comprehensive scheme sub-arg 368 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Principles of sovereign immunity dictate that Secti sub-arg 276 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.5 5. The court of appeals correctly held that Section 74 sub-arg 335 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court’s Decision In United States v. Williams sub-arg 1274 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. In every jurisdiction, aiding and abetting is not s sub-arg 753 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Aiding and abetting has been held to be included in sub-arg 856 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The text of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43) confirms that the sub-arg 249 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The Ninth Circuit’s rule is inconsistent with this sub-arg 1026 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) A.5 5. There is no indication that Congress intended to de sub-arg 513 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) B B. The Offense Of Which Respondent Was Convicted Satis sub-arg 1291 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. PETITIONER TOLEDO-FLORES’S CASE IS MOOT sub-arg 870 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Statutory Definition Of “Aggravated Felony” Enc sub-arg 360 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Incorporating Language In 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43) sub-arg 384 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Plain Meaning of “Any Felony Punishable Under T sub-arg 1186 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D.1 1. The Phrase “Punishable Under the Controlled Substan sub-arg 159 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The District Court’s Substitution Ruling And Its Re sub-arg 847 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Section 1447(d) is not implicated because the distr sub-arg 2613 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The district court’s ruling overturning the Attorne sub-arg 848 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) II.A A. A Federal Employee Is Entitled To A Federal Forum T sub-arg 1072 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Attorney General Is No More Constrained To Acce sub-arg 2206 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Petitioner’s Construction Of Section 2679(d)(1) Wou sub-arg 566 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The Language of the Westfall Act Gives The Attorney sub-arg 1103 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Giving Conclusive Effect To The Attorney General’s sub-arg 1385 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) A A. The Ordinary Meanings of the Statutory Terms, Inclu sub-arg 2631 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory Context Confirms That The Limitations sub-arg 502 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) C C. The Legislative History Confirms the Import of the sub-arg 2059 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioners’ Reliance On One Of The General Purpose sub-arg 1527 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) I.A A. If Review Of An Agency Action “Could Have Been Obta sub-arg 516 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The only reasonable construction of the PSD regulat sub-arg 1124 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The “hours of operation” exclusion does not support sub-arg 1065 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Even Under The District Court’s Reading Of The “Hou sub-arg 449 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) I.B.4 4. Because Review Of The Claim That The PSD Regulation sub-arg 1054 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) II.A A. EPA May Interpret The Statutory Definition Of “Modi sub-arg 487 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Congress’s Use Of The Same Definition Of “Modificat sub-arg 3069 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Attempts To Commit Violent Felonies Are Violent Fel sub-arg 663 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Florida Law Requires An Act Directed Toward Entry O sub-arg 1102 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Attempted Burglary Of A Dwelling Under Florida Law sub-arg 1050 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The Expressio Unius Canon Does Not Apply sub-arg 454 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The Ejusdem Generis Canon Does Not Aid Petitioner sub-arg 292 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The Legislative History Does Not Support Petitioner sub-arg 476 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Florida’s Treatment Of Curtilage Does Not Take Atte sub-arg 970 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Neither The Doctrine Of Constitutional Avoidance No sub-arg 442 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. Petitioner’s Conviction Satisfies The ACCA Under A sub-arg 329 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) A A. Most Constitutional Errors Are Subject To HarmlessE sub-arg 393 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) B B. The Omission Of An Offense Element From A Federal I sub-arg 1276 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court’s Decisions Concerning Grand Jury Errors sub-arg 1554 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) D D. Notice Concerns Do Not Mandate Treating Indictment sub-arg 1246 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) E E. Historical Evidence Concerning The Role Of The Gran sub-arg 1775 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) F.1 1. The test for harmlessness should focus on whether a sub-arg 892 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) F.2 2. The evidence in this case establishes that a ration sub-arg 206 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) A A. Construing “Proceeds” To Mean “Gross Receipts” Refl sub-arg 2002 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) B B. The “Gross Receipts” Definition Gives The Money Lau sub-arg 1160 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) C C. The “Profits” Definition Would Impose Unreasonable sub-arg 2212 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Justifications For The “Profi sub-arg 1987 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) A A. Article III’s Case-Or-Controversy Requirement Gener sub-arg 910 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Taxpayer standing under Flast rests upon a unique a sub-arg 1005 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. This Court’s precedents confirm the narrow ambit of sub-arg 1018 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Respondents’ objection to the constitutionality of sub-arg 495 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The mere presence of federal funding is insufficien sub-arg 3191 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Under Flast, taxpayer standing extends only to obje sub-arg 1217 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. Separation of powers principles require that the Fl sub-arg 1008 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Government Officials Do Not Become Racketeers Or Ex sub-arg 661 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Extortion Requires Showing Both That Government Off sub-arg 687 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Petitioners Did Not Act With A “Wrongful” Or Extort sub-arg 732 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Regulatory Actions At Issue Cannot Support A Cl sub-arg 612 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) I.E E. At A Minimum, Petitioners Did Not Violate Any Clear sub-arg 245 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. A Bivens action is inconsistent with claims under t sub-arg 623 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The APA precludes respondent’s Bivens action in its sub-arg 1291 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.A.3 3. None of the limitations of the APA warrant the exte sub-arg 687 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.B B. There Is No Fifth Amendment Right Against Retaliati sub-arg 927 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. The Fifth Amendment guarantees only the right to ju sub-arg 909 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. Respondent cannot claim that petitioners imposed an sub-arg 1327 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.D D. At a Minimum, Petitioners Did Not Violate Any Clear sub-arg 160 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 402(b) Of The CWA Unambiguously Required EP sub-arg 532 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Repeals by implication are disfavored sub-arg 450 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Section 7(a)(2)’s no-jeopardy and consultation requ sub-arg 1588 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. The development of Section 7 of the ESA since its o sub-arg 1112 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) I.B.4 4. Regulations promulgated by FWS and NMFS in 1986 ref sub-arg 950 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) I.B.5 5. This Court’s decision in TVA v. Hill does not suppo sub-arg 621 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) II.A A. EPA’s Initiation Of Consultation In This Case Does sub-arg 469 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Although EPA Incorrectly Stated During The Administ sub-arg 812 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) II.C C. A Remand For Further Administrative Proceedings Is sub-arg 304 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) A A. Under Agency Principles, An Employer Is Vicariously sub-arg 1839 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) B B. Petitioner’s Effort To Limit Employer Liability To sub-arg 1394 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) C C. Causation Is Established When A Supervisor’s Discri sub-arg 842 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) D D. An Employer’s Independent Investigation Can Break T sub-arg 646 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) E E. Because A Reasonable Factfinder Could Conclude That sub-arg 1549 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Availability Of A Precisely Drawn, Specific Rem sub-arg 792 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Section 6404(h) imposes limits on who may sue and w sub-arg 1423 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Congress enacted Section 6404(h) against a backdrop sub-arg 651 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. When Congress Establishes A Specific Review Procedu sub-arg 558 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. The canon of implied repeal does not assist petitio sub-arg 848 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. Exclusive Tax Court jurisdiction is consistent with sub-arg 538 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.3 3. Exclusive review in the Tax Court does not create a sub-arg 1308 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. This Court Presumes That An Agency Will Act In Good sub-arg 192 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Primary Goal Of The Sentencing Reform Act Is To sub-arg 912 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Booker Envisions That Appellate Review And Advisory sub-arg 796 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Appellate review cannot limit unwarranted sentencin sub-arg 482 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The Sentencing Guidelines are the appropriate bench sub-arg 828 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. There is no other appropriate benchmark for proport sub-arg 650 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.4 4. The proportionality principle is consistent with th sub-arg 394 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.5 5. Appellate review without a proportionality principl sub-arg 615 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D.1 1. Proportionality review is consistent with Section 3 sub-arg 205 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D.2 2. Proportionality review is consistent with the parsi sub-arg 167 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D.3 3. Proportionality review is supported by 18 U.S.C. 35 sub-arg 290 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.E.1 1. The proportionality principle does not violate the sub-arg 740 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.E.2 2. The proportionality principle does not reinstate ma sub-arg 431 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.E.3 3. The proportionality principle does not otherwise un sub-arg 754 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Circumstances On Which The District Court Relie sub-arg 1143 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. No Other Circumstances In The Record Could Justify sub-arg 823 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) A A. Section 107(a)(1)-(4)(B) Permits Only A Person Who sub-arg 1507 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 107(a) Does Not Implicitly Permit A Potenti sub-arg 1302 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 113(f) Provides The Exclusive Mechanisms By sub-arg 2768 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) D D. The Structure And Purpose Of CERCLA And SARA Do Not sub-arg 2534 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) E E. Respondent Is Not Entitled To Bring Suit Under Sect sub-arg 586 — candidate
Watson v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of Section 924(c)(1) Encompasses Receiving sub-arg 2244 — candidate
Watson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Meaning Of “Use” In Section 924(d) Confirms Tha sub-arg 1288 — candidate
Watson v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Construing The Statute To Proscribe Receiving A Fir sub-arg 1739 — candidate
Watson v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Because The Ordinary Tools Of Statutory Constructio sub-arg 262 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Booker Makes Clear That The Guidelines Will Continu sub-arg 881 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The Guidelines integrate the congressional sentenci sub-arg 1573 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The Guidelines reflect the considered judgment of a sub-arg 587 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. A presumption of reasonableness helps to prevent un sub-arg 2157 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.U U.S.C. 3553(a) sub-arg 384 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. According A Presumption Of Reasonableness To Within sub-arg 1519 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The SRA Requires Only A General Explanation For A S sub-arg 745 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The District Court Considered The Factors In 18 U.S sub-arg 796 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The District Court Adequately Explained Its Sentenc sub-arg 351 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Petitioner Cannot Rebut The Presumption That The Wi sub-arg 386 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Offers or solicitations to sell, buy, or barter con sub-arg 314 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Non-commercial efforts to solicit, to distribute, o sub-arg 1453 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The imminent-incitement test of Brandenburg v. Ohio sub-arg 1179 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I.A.4 4. Direct proposals to provide or to receive contraban sub-arg 726 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I.A.5 5. Any mistaken speech captured by Section 2252A(a)(3) sub-arg 1158 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I.A.6 6. Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) proscribes no protected spee sub-arg 404 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) Is Not Overbroad In Relation sub-arg 935 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 2252A(a)(3)(B) IS NOT IMPERMISSIBLY VAGUE sub-arg 1830 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) I I. APPELLEE’S AS-APPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE WITH sub-arg 1038 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Congress And This Court Have Recognized That Advert sub-arg 941 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Appellee Bears The Burden Of Establishing Its Entit sub-arg 1018 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. The district court’s stated reasons for declining t sub-arg 870 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. The contextual evidence that the district court dec sub-arg 1509 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) A A. The KRS Plan Is Facially Discriminatory Because It sub-arg 2390 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) B B. The Fact That KRS Uses Age As A Criterion For Award sub-arg 1555 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) C C. Petitioners’ Proffered Justification For The KRS Pl sub-arg 1226 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) D D. The Text And History Of The OWBPA Confirm That KRS’ sub-arg 1344 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) E E. The Position Of The EEOC Is Entitled To Deference sub-arg 979 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Text Of Section 841(b)(1)(A) Provides For sub-arg 2956 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory Context Supports The View That 21 U.S sub-arg 1101 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Drafting History Confirms That Congress Intende sub-arg 1839 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Defining A “Felony Drug Offense” Solely By Referenc sub-arg 1230 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Rule Of Lenity Has No Application To This Case sub-arg 1306 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Recidivist Drunk Driving Under New Mexico Law Quali sub-arg 2577 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The ACCA’s residual provision does not broadly requ sub-arg 511 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The residual provision is not limited to crimes inv sub-arg ❝ 825 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The residual provision is not limited to property c sub-arg 896 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. The residual provision does not categorically exclu sub-arg 626 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Legislative History Does Not Support Petitioner sub-arg 959 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Doctrine Of Constitutional Avoidance Does Not A sub-arg 888 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Rule of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 228 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. Petitioner’s Felony DUI Convictions Are Crimes “Pun sub-arg 333 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Federal Magistrates Act Authorizes A District C sub-arg 830 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Under the Court’s reasoning in Peretz, a defendant sub-arg 1010 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The decision whether to have an Article III judge o sub-arg 2590 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. The record need not show that the defendant agreed sub-arg 703 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.4 4. There is no basis for importing into 28 U.S.C. 636( sub-arg 752 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Rule 52(b) Applies To Petitioner’s Improper Delegat sub-arg 1530 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. Any error in allowing the magistrate judge to super sub-arg 824 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Any error in the failure to obtain petitioner’s exp sub-arg 1324 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.3 3. Any error in having the magistrate judge conduct vo sub-arg 695 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of Section 1229c Expressly Limits How Long sub-arg 1265 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory History Of The INA’s Voluntary Depart sub-arg 1202 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) C C. There Is No Conflict Between The Restrictions On Pe sub-arg 2766 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) D D. The Agency’s Longstanding Position That The Filing sub-arg 2408 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) E E. The Constitutional Avoidance Canon Provides No Warr sub-arg 718 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 VALIDLY DIVEST sub-arg 165 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Text and history demonstrate that the Suspension Cl sub-arg 929 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Eisentrager confirms that the Suspension Clause doe sub-arg 1460 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. Indeterminate concepts of “jurisdiction” and “con t sub-arg 383 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. At common law, the writ of habeas corpus was not av sub-arg 1709 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The United States does not exercise sovereignty ove sub-arg 802 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. At common law, the writ of habeas corpus was not av sub-arg 958 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. At a minimum, petitioners should be required to ex sub-arg 570 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The scope of any habeas review that would exist in sub-arg 1299 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The DTA remedy is adequate and effective sub-arg 1049 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.4 4. Petitioners’ objections to the CSRT process lack me sub-arg 1246 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.4 4. Petitioners’ objections to the scope of DTA review sub-arg 770 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The AUMF Authorizes The Detention Of Enemy Com bata sub-arg 1657 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioners’ Detention Does Not Violate The Due Pro sub-arg 1252 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Petitioners’ Selective Reliance On Foreign Law Is U sub-arg 359 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Section 67(e)(1) looks to the conduct of individual sub-arg 1463 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Section 67(e)(1) is best read to exempt from the 2% sub-arg 1450 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) B B. Investment-Advice Fees Are Subject To The 2% Floor sub-arg 1382 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) C C. Petitioner’s Weak Causation Test Is Inconsistent Wi sub-arg 958 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. Subjecting investment-advice fees to the 2% floor i sub-arg 667 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. An examination of the bills culminating in the enac sub-arg 871 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) E E. Petitioner’s Policy Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 232 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Language Of Section 633a(a) And The Struc sub-arg 2942 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) B B. The Unique Manner In Which Congress And The Executi sub-arg 2388 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) C C. Material Textual Differences Between Title VII And sub-arg 492 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) D D. The ADEA’s Legislative History Provides No Support sub-arg 351 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) E E. Neither The CSC Nor The EEOC Has Definitively Inter sub-arg 443 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) F F. The Court’s Reluctance To Broadly Construe Waivers sub-arg 890 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of The Statute Does Not Require A Design T sub-arg 2494 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Legislative History Does Not Support Petitioner sub-arg 2593 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Bulk Cash Smuggling Statute Does Not Support Pe sub-arg 1054 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Rule Of Lenity Is Inapplicable sub-arg 340 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Evidence, Viewed Under A Correct Interpretation sub-arg 1351 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Commission’s interpretation of the Federal Powe sub-arg 454 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Commission’s application of the Act’s “just and sub-arg 1037 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Mobile-Sierra doctrine does not require ex ante sub-arg 2269 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. A finding of “market dysfunction,” although relevan sub-arg 518 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The “public interest” standard permits modification sub-arg 237 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The court of appeals erred in suggesting that the “ sub-arg 865 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The Commission reasonably concluded that the public sub-arg 1344 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of Section 301(a) Requires Evidence That T sub-arg 1791 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Congressional Purpose Would Be Thwarted If Unexplai sub-arg 565 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Approach Of The Court Below Is Consistent With sub-arg 1813 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Approach Of The Court Below Does Not Shift The sub-arg 689 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Petitioner’s Convictions Should Be Affirmed Even If sub-arg 805 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) A A. Where State Law Prescribes Alternative Maximum Sent sub-arg 1715 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred By Holding That The “Max sub-arg 1937 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) C C. The “Maximum Term Of Imprisonment” For An Offense I sub-arg 1687 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) D D. If Adopted By This Court, The Court Of Appeals’ Int sub-arg 510 — candidate
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Plain Language And The Structure Of The EAJA De sub-arg 3741 — candidate
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Legislative History And Purpose Of The EAJA Con sub-arg 2262 — candidate
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Principles Of Sovereign Immunity Require That The T sub-arg 768 — candidate
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff - Brief (Merits) II II. THE EAJA COMPENSATES “OTHER EXPENSES” AT THE COST sub-arg 886 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) A A. Congress’s Policy Determinations Concerning The App sub-arg ❝ 2479 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) B B. Congress Has Determined That, In Sentencing A Defen sub-arg 2586 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) C C. Requiring Courts To Adhere To Congress’s Policy Det sub-arg 980 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) D D. Because The District Court Reduced Petitioner’s Sen sub-arg 655 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Meaning Of “Restore” Is To Give Back, Not sub-arg 820 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statute’s Structure Confirms Its Plain Meaning sub-arg 2044 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Absence Of Legislative History Directly On Poin sub-arg 911 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Canon Against Absurdities Is Inapposite sub-arg 1576 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. There Is No Basis For Resort To The Rule Of Lenity sub-arg 195 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Rule 32(h), Which Codifies The Holding Of Burns, Re sub-arg 563 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Term “Departure” Encompasses All Deviations Fro sub-arg 1105 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. A Notice Requirement Is Also Supported By Rule 32(i sub-arg 284 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Notice Of All Sua Sponte Deviations From The Guidel sub-arg 1221 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.E E. Construing Rule 32 To Mandate Notice Of Variances W sub-arg 438 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.F.1 1. The fact that a Section 3553(a) variance is always sub-arg 322 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.F.2 2. Requiring notice of Section 3553(a) variances is no sub-arg 576 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.F.3 3. Requiring notice of Section 3553(a) variances is co sub-arg 424 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.F.4 4. Rule 32(h)’s reference to “departure” is not limite sub-arg 477 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. This Court Should Decide The Harmless Error Issue sub-arg 236 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Kotteakos Governs The Harmlessness Inquiry sub-arg 480 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Notice Deficiency Did Not Affect Petitioner’s P sub-arg 1117 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Evidence That Petitioner Now Claims He Would Ha sub-arg 697 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Booker envisioned that appellate review and the Gui sub-arg 342 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Appellate review cannot limit unwarranted disparity sub-arg 513 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The Sentencing Guidelines provide the only appropri sub-arg 1082 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.4 4. Proportionality review is consistent with the reaso sub-arg 1010 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.5 5. Appellate review without a proportionality principl sub-arg 591 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Proportionality review is consistent with Section 3 sub-arg 527 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Proportionality review is consistent with the “pars sub-arg 198 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Proportionality review is supported by 18 U.S.C. 35 sub-arg 448 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Proportionality review does not violate the Sixth A sub-arg 1162 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The Sixth Amendment does not require that a sentenc sub-arg 789 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. Proportionality review does not restore mandatory g sub-arg 592 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONER’S SENTENCE WAS UNREASONABLE sub-arg 1641 — candidate
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Language Of Section 2680(c) Makes Clear T sub-arg 1587 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) A A. The Unambiguous Text Of The Internal Revenue Code P sub-arg 1836 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) B B. The Express Textual Exclusivity Of The Tax-Refund S sub-arg 2394 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) C C. Respondents Have No Cause Of Action Directly Under sub-arg 2869 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court of Appeals Compounded Its Earlier Error B sub-arg 870 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I I. THIS CASE IS MOOT sub-arg 1584 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Appellant Cannot Establish Any Actual Or Imminent I sub-arg 888 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Section 319’s Enhanced Contribution Limits Are Cons sub-arg 3279 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Appellant’s Equal Protection Challenge To Section 3 sub-arg 426 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) III III. SECTION 319’s DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ARE CONSTIT sub-arg 1942 — candidate
Greenlaw v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Jurisdiction Of The Courts Of Appeals Is Limite sub-arg 477 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Concept Of Privity Is More Flexible Than Petiti sub-arg 1962 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Where Litigants Who Share A Common Interest Engage sub-arg 1905 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Because the right of disclosure under FOIA is a pub sub-arg 1064 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. In light of the “close working relationship” betwee sub-arg 1536 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF sub-arg 1134 — candidate
Geren v. Omar - Brief (Merits) I.A A. United States Courts Lack Jurisdiction In These Cas sub-arg 1470 — candidate
Geren v. Omar - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Jurisdictional Limitation Recognized In Hirota sub-arg 1341 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of 18 U.S.C. 844(h) Makes Clear That Secti sub-arg 1414 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) B B. The Presence Of An Express Relational Element In 18 sub-arg 480 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) C C. The Statute’s History Confirms That The Absence Of sub-arg 1671 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Own Previous Decision In Stew sub-arg 973 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) E E. The Canon Against Absurdities Does Not Apply sub-arg 1440 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) F F. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 333 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) I.A A. This Court’s Decisions Recognize That An Agency Reg sub-arg 735 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Text Of The Administrative Procedure Act And Pr sub-arg 799 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Under The Legal Framework Established By This Court sub-arg 1514 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Courts Below Identified No Site-Specific Forest sub-arg 250 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Respondents’ Claimed “Procedural Injury” Is Not An sub-arg 681 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Respondents’ Supplemental Declarations Were Untimel sub-arg 382 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The Parties’ Settlement Eliminated The Prior Justic sub-arg 319 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) III.C C.F.R. 215.4(a) And 215.12(f) sub-arg 971 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) IV.A A. The Text Of The APA Does Not Support, Let Alone Com sub-arg 653 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) IV.B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Approach Disserves The Orderl sub-arg 731 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The APA permits an agency to change its policy as l sub-arg 266 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Commission acknowledged its change in policy sub-arg 393 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The Commission provided a reasonable explanation fo sub-arg 890 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The Commission’s consideration of context in determ sub-arg 1298 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Commission reasonably concluded that vulgar exp sub-arg 1087 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The court of appeals erred in second-guessing the C sub-arg 1234 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) C C. This Court Should Remand To Allow The Court Of Appe sub-arg 403 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd A A. The Text Of Section 921(a)(33)(A) Makes Clear That sub-arg 2283 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd B B. Limiting The Reach Of Section 922(g)(9) To Convicti sub-arg 976 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd C C. The Statute’s History Confirms That Section 922(g)( sub-arg ❝ 1484 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd D D. Permitting The Government To Prove The Identity Of sub-arg 833 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd E E. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 233 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. A convicted felon’s failure to report to prison cre sub-arg 908 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. A confrontation between an escapee and law enforcem sub-arg 800 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Statistical data is not necessary to demonstrate th sub-arg 206 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Failure-to-report escape is purposeful because the sub-arg 824 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Failure-to-report escape is violent and aggressive sub-arg 308 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Failure-to-report escape is not disqualified from b sub-arg 464 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Whether the violence triggered by an offense occurs sub-arg 940 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Because failure-to-report escape is a continuing of sub-arg 484 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Considering potential violence during recapture wou sub-arg 422 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. The enumerated offenses are not all “property crime sub-arg 817 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. Status as a “property crime” is irrelevant to the A sub-arg 354 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.3 3. The ACCA’s legislative history does not support a “ sub-arg ❝ 403 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.4 4. The canon against surplusage does not support a “pr sub-arg 427 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.5 5. Constitutional concerns do not support a “property sub-arg 779 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 150 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The qualified-immunity doctrine serves vital public sub-arg 1020 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Proper application of pleading standards is critica sub-arg 469 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Bell Atlantic Clarified The General Civil Pleading sub-arg 1487 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) I.C C. In The Case Of Personal-Capacity Claims Against Hig sub-arg 762 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Permitting Respondent sub-arg 3074 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) II II. HIGH-RANKING FEDERAL OFFICIALS MAY NOT BE HELD LIA sub-arg 73 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) II.A A. sub-arg 451 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Any Supervisory Liability Permitted Under Bivens Mu sub-arg 1570 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Permitting This Suit sub-arg 294 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. 18 U.S.C. 3501 Required Admission Of Petitioner’s V sub-arg 3019 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Because Section 3501 Did Not Mandate Exclusion Of P sub-arg 1033 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 3501’s Legislative History Does Not Warrant sub-arg 2013 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Canon Of Constitutional Avoidance Does Not Appl sub-arg 453 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Petitioner’s Policy Arguments Do Not Warrant A Diff sub-arg 1594 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. If This Court Concludes That Section 3501 Mandates sub-arg 226 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) A A. Commerce’s Interpretation Of The Antidumping-Duty S sub-arg 487 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Commerce’s interpretation reflects a permissible re sub-arg 1693 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Commerce’s interpretation effectuates the purposes sub-arg 549 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Commerce’s interpretation prevents evasion of the s sub-arg 1352 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Commerce’s now-withdrawn tolling regulation provide sub-arg 1215 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Commerce reasonably disregarded the fiction that en sub-arg 1454 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The court of appeals erred in assigning dispositive sub-arg 600 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Section 7261(b)(2) is materially identical to Secti sub-arg 951 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Under Section 706, the party challenging agency act sub-arg 801 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The enactment of the VCAA did not alter the rule of sub-arg 1464 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The nonadversarial nature of VA administrative proc sub-arg 530 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The court of appeals erred in relying on the treatm sub-arg 1336 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. VCAA notice errors do not have the natural effect o sub-arg 1002 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. A benefits claimant is in a better position than th sub-arg 617 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) I.A A. CEQ’s Interpretation Of Section 1506.11 Comports Wi sub-arg 1131 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Ninth Circuit Erred In Deferring To The Distric sub-arg 1815 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The District Court Lacked Discretion To Grant Injun sub-arg 882 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The “Mere Possibility” Of Irreparable Harm Cannot S sub-arg 1814 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Balance Of Hardships And The Public Interest Ca sub-arg 2452 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. RICO’s definition of “enterprise” contains no “asce sub-arg 1951 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. A RICO “enterprise” and a “pattern of racketeering sub-arg 2399 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. An independent “ascertainable structure” requiremen sub-arg 872 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.4 4. An independent “ascertainable structure” requiremen sub-arg 669 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.5 5. Petitioner’s textual analysis of Section 1961(4), l sub-arg 763 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.6 6. The purpose of the RICO statute does not support an sub-arg 639 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.7 7. Petitioner’s remaining contentions are without meri sub-arg 887 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED A VALID RICO ENTERPRISE E sub-arg 603 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) I I. THIS COURT’S DECISION AND MANDATE IN NAVAJO FORECLO sub-arg 1595 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Indian Tucker Act’s Waiver Of Sovereign Immunit sub-arg 752 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Purported Violations Of Common-Law Trust Obligation sub-arg 2689 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. The Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act of 1950 sub-arg 1206 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of sub-arg 1521 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Arranger liability is not limited to transactions d sub-arg 572 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Shell’s knowledge and role in the disposal of its h sub-arg 821 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Lack of intent to dispose of a hazardous substance sub-arg 391 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Section 107(a)(3) encompasses the disposal of hazar sub-arg 306 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Arranger liability does not require ownership or ac sub-arg 367 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Consistent With Restatement Principles, CERCLA Liab sub-arg 1230 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The District Court Erred As A Matter Of Law By Decl sub-arg 1455 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. There is no reasonable basis to assume that each pe sub-arg 469 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. There is no reasonable basis to assume that the Rai sub-arg 894 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.3 3. There is no reasonable basis for the district court sub-arg 103 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.4 4. There is no reasonable basis for using spillage est sub-arg 703 — candidate
Negusie v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) A A. The Attorney General Has Reasonably Interpreted The sub-arg 4136 — candidate
Negusie v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) B B. The Many Statutory Predecessors To The Persecutor B sub-arg 2270 — candidate
Negusie v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) C C. The Board’s Interpretation Of The Persecutor Bar Is sub-arg 2722 — candidate
Negusie v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) D D. Any Statutory Ambiguity Must Be Resolved By Deferri sub-arg 1129 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. This Court Has Limited Application Of The Exclusion sub-arg 1552 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The arresting officers could not, and should not ha sub-arg 663 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Suppression is not warranted in order to deter othe sub-arg 3453 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The costs of exclusion cannot be justified sub-arg 664 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. That The Person Who Made The Negligent Error In Thi sub-arg 2151 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. This Case Presents No Opportunity To Consider Large sub-arg 1768 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The Secretary has authority to take land into trust sub-arg 701 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The definition of “Indian” also looks to current st sub-arg 1891 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The purposes and legislative history of the IRA rei sub-arg 866 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.A.4 4. This Court’s decision in John does not require a di sub-arg 435 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.A.5 5. In any event, Congress made the statutory definitio sub-arg 297 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The Secretary’s construction of “tribe” and “Indian sub-arg 400 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The Secretary’s regulatory interpretation is consis sub-arg 1563 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Subsequent Indian legislation, including amendments sub-arg 953 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Text, Structure, Purpose, And History Of The Se sub-arg 1318 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) II.B B. A Comparison To Other Settlement Acts Makes Clear T sub-arg 1512 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Any Doubt Should Be Resolved In Favor Of Preserving sub-arg 365 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) A A. The Statutory Text Does Not Unambiguously Prohibit sub-arg 871 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Section 316(b) cross-references provisions that req sub-arg 609 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Congress conferred broad authority on EPA to determ sub-arg 1228 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court Of Appeals Usurped EPA’s Discretion By Im sub-arg 1017 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) D D. There Is No Basis For Applying An Artificial Presum sub-arg 1236 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) E.1 1. EPA based the national performance standards on its sub-arg 879 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) E.2 2. EPA permissibly authorized site-specific determinat sub-arg 445 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Rule 52(b) Applies To All Direct Appeals Of Crimina sub-arg 727 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Policies Of Rule 52(b) Are Served In The Contex sub-arg 1991 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. A Deviation By The Government From The Terms Of A P sub-arg 1145 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Contemporaneous Objection Requirement Applies E sub-arg 676 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. There Is No Functional Impediment To Applying The P sub-arg 1698 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D D. A Plea-Breach Claim Raised For The First Time On Ap sub-arg 375 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Petitioner Cannot Demonstrate That The Government’s sub-arg 198 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Petitioner Cannot Demonstrate That The Government’s sub-arg 401 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The text, structure, and purpose of the Act dictate sub-arg 1099 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation cannot be reconc sub-arg 733 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The Corps’ and EPA’s longstanding interpretations o sub-arg 567 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The agencies’ considered adoption of an effects-bas sub-arg ❝ 753 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The agencies’ conclusion that the proposed discharg sub-arg 1739 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Statutory Text And Context Indicate That Sectio sub-arg 2681 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The purpose of Section 1028A(a)(1) is to provide en sub-arg 576 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Requiring the government to prove that the defendan sub-arg 1123 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Neither the statute’s title nor the references to “ sub-arg 1581 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Petitioner’s Proposed Construction Is Not Necessary sub-arg 1375 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. There Is No Presumption That A Defendant Must Be Aw sub-arg 2451 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. There Is No Reason To Resort To The Rule Of Lenity sub-arg 866 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Using a communication facility to purchase a contro sub-arg 359 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Using a communication facility to purchase a contro sub-arg 1137 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Principles Of Accessory Liability Do Not Support Pe sub-arg 1019 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Statutory Context Does Not Support Petitioner’s sub-arg 2423 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Legislative History Of Section 843(b) Does Not sub-arg 1472 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 268 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.A A. This Court Has Upheld Congress’s Power To Restrict sub-arg 493 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Hillary Is The Functional Equivalent Of Express Adv sub-arg 1507 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Video-on-demand has no special constitutional statu sub-arg 680 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. Hillary’s 90-minute length gives it no special cons sub-arg 279 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The “overtly conservative” nature of Hillary’s advo sub-arg 365 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.C.4 4. Appellant’s purported use of funds acquired from in sub-arg 834 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Appellant Presents No Basis For Overruling This Cou sub-arg 711 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Disclosure Requirements Are Subject To Intermediate sub-arg 354 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. The government has an important interest in providi sub-arg 1455 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. The government has an important interest in facilit sub-arg 581 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. Appellant presents no evidence that the disclosure sub-arg 339 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. Appellant presents no evidence that the reporting r sub-arg 243 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.C.3 3. The disclaimer requirements impose no constitutiona sub-arg 831 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Text Of Section 4(a) Forecloses Appellant’s Arg sub-arg 760 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.B B. This Court’s Decisions Confirm That Appellant’s Sec sub-arg 752 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Congress’s authority to enforce the Reconstruction sub-arg 1034 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. Boerne recognizes that substantial deference is owe sub-arg 1400 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A.3 3. Section 5 of the VRA does not redefine substantive sub-arg 976 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.1.a. Secti a. Section 5 is geographically limited to those areas sub-arg 1460 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.1.b. Secti b. Section 5 is temporally limited, and the bailout pr sub-arg 588 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.2.a. Secti a. Section 5 enforcement sub-arg 1371 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.2.b. Addit b. Additional evidence of voter discrimination sub-arg 1051 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.3 3. Appellant’s efforts to minimize the legislative rec sub-arg 954 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Amici’s Challenges To The 2006 Substantive Amendmen sub-arg 267 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) A A. Under Chevron, OCC’s Regulatory Definition Of The T sub-arg 593 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. OCC’s regulation does not alter the federal-state b sub-arg 404 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Chevron deference applies even though Section 484 l sub-arg 1315 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. OCC had statutory authority to promulgate its regul sub-arg 475 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. OCC has not changed its position in any way that pr sub-arg 587 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. OCC’s interpretation of “visitorial powers” is cons sub-arg 1830 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. OCC’s interpretation of the term “visitorial powers sub-arg 915 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. OCC’s interpretation advances the purposes of the N sub-arg 790 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. This Court’s decisions in Guthrie and Watters suppo sub-arg 839 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) C.5 5. OCC’s interpretation is supported by other provisio sub-arg 420 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioner’s Arguments That OCC’s Interpretation Is sub-arg 1968 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Respondent Lacks Constitutional Standing Because He sub-arg 1248 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Respondent Lacks Prudential Standing Because He Ass sub-arg 689 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) II II. CONGRESS’S TRANSFER OF THE LAND TO A PRIVATE PARTY sub-arg 2663 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Congress’s Efforts To Preserve Sunrise Rock As A Wa sub-arg 2384 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Congress Did Not Reserve Continuing Control Over Su sub-arg 1394 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Congress’s Method Of Transferring Sunrise Rock Does sub-arg 1047 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) III.D D. Congress’s Creation Of A Private Inholding Within T sub-arg 710 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Subparagraph (M)(i) does not require the amount of sub-arg 1029 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Subparagraph (M)(ii), which must be construed in pa sub-arg 706 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Other provisions in Section 1101(a)(43) also contai sub-arg 556 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. Requiring The Amount Of Loss To Be An Element Of A sub-arg 2519 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The INA does not mandate a categorical approach sub-arg 637 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The considerations that supported the categorical a sub-arg 1303 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The Attorney General’s approach preserves the appro sub-arg 327 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) D D. Any Statutory Ambiguity Must Be Resolved By Deferri sub-arg 1184 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) E E. The Loss To Victims In Petitioner’s Offense Vastly sub-arg 438 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The text of Section 924(c)(1)(A) demonstrates that sub-arg 1840 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The structure of Section 924(c)(1) indicates that t sub-arg 623 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The purpose of imposing a higher mandatory minimum sub-arg 972 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. Congress’s rejection of proposals that would have b sub-arg 838 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.5 5. Petitioner’s construction is not necessary to avoid sub-arg 525 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with Harris sub-arg 334 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The bases for the common-law presumption in favor o sub-arg 1942 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Any such presumption would be rebutted here sub-arg 136 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. There Is No Reason To Resort To The Rule Of Lenity sub-arg 399 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Double Jeopardy Clause Affords The Government O sub-arg 1062 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Because A Defendant Remains In Continuing Jeopardy sub-arg 1553 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Rationale Behind Collateral Estoppel Does Not A sub-arg 1905 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioner’s Policy Arguments Cannot Justify Extens sub-arg 1495 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Petitioner Has Not Established That The Jury’s Acqu sub-arg 970 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Text Of Section 1252(f )(2) Plainly Provides Th sub-arg 2822 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Statutory Structure Confirms That Section 1252( sub-arg 2064 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Drafting History Confirms That Section 1252(f)( sub-arg 1258 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Applying Section 1252(f)(2) To Stay Requests Furthe sub-arg 2252 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) I.E E. No Canon Of Construction Justifies Ignoring The Cle sub-arg 1111 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONER CANNOT IN ANY EVENT PREVAIL UNDER THE T sub-arg 1762 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Certain Narrow Categories Of Speech Do Not Enjoy Fi sub-arg 1064 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Section 48 Regulates A Narrow Category Of Speech Th sub-arg 2791 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Harm From The Speech Reached By Section 48 Grea sub-arg 1212 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) I.U U.S. 115, 126 (1989) (“shielding minors from the influ sub-arg 751 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Its Similarities To Other Kinds Of Unprotected Spee sub-arg 798 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Respondent Was Required To Demonstrate Substantial sub-arg 644 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Section 48 Is Not Substantially Overbroad sub-arg 1604 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Isolated Hypotheticals Do Not Justify Invalidating sub-arg 689 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Attorneys Who Provide “Legal Representation” Or Oth sub-arg 1099 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Construing The Term “Debt Relief Agency” To Encompa sub-arg 501 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Application Of The BAPCPA To Attorney Conduct D sub-arg 556 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Canon Of Constitutional Avoidance Provides No B sub-arg 387 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. The court of appeals ignored the historical meaning sub-arg 1122 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The legislative history of Section 526(a)(4), and i sub-arg 1723 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II.A.3 3. A federal rule of professional conduct in this sett sub-arg 297 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II.A.4 4. Section 526(a)(4) does not cover petitioners’ examp sub-arg 472 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Court of Appeals Disregarded Basic Principles O sub-arg 637 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Section 526(a)(4) Is Consistent With The First Amen sub-arg 1890 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Court Of Appeals Failed To Apply Basic Principl sub-arg 331 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Disclosure Requirements In Commercial Advertising M sub-arg 1113 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III.B.1 1. Section 528 responded to “increasingly aggressive l sub-arg 474 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III.B.2 2. Section 528 addresses the identified problem direct sub-arg 265 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III.B.3 3. The Section 528 disclosures are factual in nature a sub-arg 883 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III.B.4 4. By its terms, Section 528 permits debt relief agenc sub-arg 158 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Petitioners Cannot Avoid Section 528’s Disclosure R sub-arg 413 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The text of Section 1346 reinstated pre-McNally jur sub-arg 1178 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Section 1346 reinstated pre-McNally jurisprudence t sub-arg 2309 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Congress’s reinstatement of pre-McNally law that ho sub-arg 657 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 1346’s Drafting And Legislative History Con sub-arg 1161 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Interpreting Section 1346 To Exclude A State-Law Di sub-arg 972 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. The elements of Section 1346 sufficiently define it sub-arg 1460 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. Section 1346 satisfies any applicable clear-stateme sub-arg 465 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) D.3 3. The rule of lenity does not support implying a stat sub-arg 205 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The federal government has long exercised civilcomm sub-arg 1761 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The federal government’s custodial role over person sub-arg 2012 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Section 4248 serves the same legitimate ends as pri sub-arg 859 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) B B. Because Section 4248 Is Limited To Persons Already sub-arg 1404 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 4248’s Application To Individuals Charged W sub-arg 388 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) A A. The Writ Of Habeas Corpus Is Effective At Guantanam sub-arg 875 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) B B. Petitioners Are Entitled To Release From Military D sub-arg 1796 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign sub-arg 883 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The political Branches have determined that petitio sub-arg 1420 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The statutory bars to petitioners’ entry do not vio sub-arg 1606 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. A judicial order overriding the judgment of the pol sub-arg 407 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) D D. The Habeas Statute Does Not Authorize A Judicial Or sub-arg 1213 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) E E. Even Assuming Arguendo That A Court In Some Circums sub-arg 1036 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) F F. Subsequent Developments Have Undermined The Factual sub-arg 373 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 2250(a)(2)(B)’s Context And Structure Clari sub-arg 993 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Applying Section 2250(a)(2)(B) To Pre-SORNA Travel sub-arg 664 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. No constitutional doubts would be avoided by adopti sub-arg 456 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. No presumption against retroactivity applies sub-arg 212 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The rule of lenity does not apply sub-arg 371 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. A Law Is Retrospective Under The Ex Post Facto Clau sub-arg 895 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner’s Failure To Register Was Not Completed sub-arg 1326 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) I.A A. EAJA Unambiguously Provides That Awards Of Fees And sub-arg 1787 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) I.B B. EAJA’s Relationship To 42 U.S.C. 406(b), And The Dr sub-arg 1268 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Decisions Of This Court Interpreting 42 U.S.C. sub-arg 793 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Court Of Appeals Failed To Identify A Sound Bas sub-arg 425 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) II II. EAJA AWARDS ARE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET U sub-arg 529 — candidate
United States v. Marcus - Brief (Merits) A A. Rule 52(b) Precludes A Court Of Appeals From Notici sub-arg 1640 — candidate
United States v. Marcus - Brief (Merits) B B. The Forfeited Error In This Case Is Subject To Ordi sub-arg 1499 — candidate
United States v. Marcus - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court Should Remand To Allow The Court Of Appe sub-arg 233 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The Constitution requires trial before an impartial sub-arg 353 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Petitioner’s jury was impartial sub-arg 1045 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. This Court’s decisions do not support an irrebuttab sub-arg 1139 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The presumption petitioner proposes would conflict sub-arg 819 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Even if juror prejudice may be presumed in some cas sub-arg 775 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Court Of Appeals Correctly Concluded That, Even sub-arg 438 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Section 1346 reinstated the pre-McNally definition sub-arg 302 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The elements of honest services wire fraud under pr sub-arg 895 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.3 3. Pre-McNally honest services fraud clearly encompass sub-arg 656 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.4 4. Neither pre-McNally decisional conflicts nor the go sub-arg 1059 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner Conspired To Commit Honest Services Wire sub-arg 665 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Any Error In The Honest Services Fraud Object Was H sub-arg 330 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Language Of Section 3(b) Demonstrates Tha sub-arg 2248 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) B B. The History Of The Wagner Act And The Legislative H sub-arg 818 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) C C. Congress’s Decision To Permit The Board To Delegate sub-arg 1162 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) D D. The Board’s Determination Is Entitled To Deference sub-arg 680 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) E E. The Policy Arguments Petitioner And Its Amici Advan sub-arg 1437 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Instructing the PKK and LTTE on how to engage in in sub-arg 1613 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Consulting with the PKK and LTTE on international l sub-arg 1813 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. Providing persons to work under the direction or co sub-arg 998 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.A.4 4. Helping the PKK and LTTE appear before national and sub-arg 957 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Court Of Appeals Confused The Vagueness And Ove sub-arg 423 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Section 2339B regulates conduct without regard to i sub-arg 1163 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. Petitioners’ arguments that Section 2339B is a cont sub-arg 710 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A.3 3. Section 2339B is narrowly tailored to advance impor sub-arg 1494 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Statute Is Not Overbroad sub-arg 374 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Statute Does Not Infringe Petitioners’ Right Of sub-arg 741 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) III III. THE MATERIAL-SUPPORT STATUTE’S RESTRICTIONS ON PR sub-arg 1276 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The language of Section 924(c)(1) states that firea sub-arg 569 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The structure of Section 924(c)(1) shows that firea sub-arg ❝ 822 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Enhanced minimum sentences for particularly dangero sub-arg 468 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The lengths of the sentences provided by Section 92 sub-arg 1017 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The relevant legislative history is silent, but the sub-arg 341 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court Should Respect Congress’s Sound Policy C sub-arg 885 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) D D. This Court’s Decision In Castillo Does Not Control sub-arg 1238 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) A A. The Mobile-Sierra Doctrine Is Fully Applicable To T sub-arg 1426 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Congress has not specified the precise standard of sub-arg 246 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The “public interest” standard approved by FERC in sub-arg 864 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Although FERC was not required to adopt the “public sub-arg 1064 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. FERC found the settlement as a whole to be just and sub-arg 969 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Application of the public-interest standard to chal sub-arg 736 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Application of the public-interest standard to chal sub-arg 267 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Language Of Section 924(e)(2)(B)(i) Encom sub-arg 1247 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Congress’s use of the unqualified term “physical fo sub-arg 615 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The ACCA reaches crimes that pose an inherent risk sub-arg 1319 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The ACCA’s categorical approach classifies crimes b sub-arg 1277 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Petitioner’s proposed narrowing construction would sub-arg 354 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Legislative History Provides No Support For Petitio sub-arg 1521 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioner’s Reading Of Section 924(e)(2)(B)(i) Cou sub-arg 1656 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Florida Supreme Court’s Decision In Hearns Does sub-arg 876 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 271 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) G G. Even If Felony Battery Did Not Qualify As A “Violen sub-arg 206 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Time Granted At A Defendant’s Request To File Pretr sub-arg 1488 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Excluding Additional Time Granted At A Defendant’s sub-arg 335 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Express Exclusion Of Delay From Pretrial Motion sub-arg 941 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Availability Of An “Ends of Justice” Continuanc sub-arg 920 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Excluding Additional Motions Preparation Time Under sub-arg 1022 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. The Legislative History Does Not Support Petitioner sub-arg 1353 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Petitioners’ Convictions Rest On Findings On All Of sub-arg 455 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Statutory Text Does Not Require Proof Of Contem sub-arg 955 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. A Contemplated-Economic-Harm Requirement Would Frus sub-arg 1038 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Drafting History Establishes That The HonestSer sub-arg 576 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.E E. Pre-McNally Case Law Does Not Support Requiring A J sub-arg 1229 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.F F. Neither Constitutional Avoidance Nor The Rule Of Le sub-arg 1392 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.G G. Petitioners Are Not Entitled To Reversal Of Their C sub-arg 1181 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Special Verdicts Can Avoid Reversal Under Yates sub-arg 403 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. By Opposing Special Verdicts, Petitioners Forfeited sub-arg 507 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. A Finding Of Forfeiture Is Consistent With Applicab sub-arg 862 — candidate
Kucana v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) Does Not Bar sub-arg 2369 — candidate
Kucana v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory Context Confirms That Section 1252(a) sub-arg 1239 — candidate
Kucana v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C C. The History Of The Immigration Laws Confirms That C sub-arg 1421 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 101 Sweeps Broadly But Imposes Meaningful L sub-arg 1032 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The historical meaning of the terms “process” and u sub-arg 2241 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The statutory context confirms that only technologi sub-arg 673 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. This Court has consistently used the machine-ortran sub-arg 949 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. A process is patent-eligible if it concerns the ope sub-arg 632 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The machine-or-transformation test accommodates evo sub-arg 1617 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.C.4 4. The alternative tests for patent-eligibility propos sub-arg 317 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 273 DOES NOT IMPLICITLY EXPAND THE CATEGOR sub-arg 1099 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY REJECTED PETITIONE sub-arg 759 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of The MVRA Mandates That A District Court sub-arg 1708 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Petitioner’s Interpretation Of Section 3664(d)(5) D sub-arg 1077 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Legislative History Of The MVRA Confirms That T sub-arg 427 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioner’s Reliance On Cases Involving “Claims-Pr sub-arg 828 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Reading Section 3664(d)(5) To Penalize Victims For sub-arg 831 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. Because The Delay In Awarding Restitution Did Not H sub-arg 1314 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The District Court Entered The Permanent Injunction sub-arg 2387 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The District Court’s Injunction Was Not Tailored To sub-arg 2177 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO HOLD A FULL sub-arg 953 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Section 3624(b)(1) authorizes credit for each full sub-arg 2123 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The presumption of intrastatutory consistency does sub-arg 1032 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. Other legal provisions do not demonstrate that “ter sub-arg 609 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The statutory history of Section 3624 indicates tha sub-arg 1073 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The legislative history of Section 3624 indicates t sub-arg 778 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. The Bureau is charged with administering the awardi sub-arg 523 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The Sentencing Commission has no authority over the sub-arg 369 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) II.A.3 3. The rule of lenity does not apply to Section 3624 sub-arg 1072 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Bureau’s Interpretation Of Section 3624(b)(1) I sub-arg 1543 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) A A. This Court Has Made Clear That Constitutional Priva sub-arg 1375 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. This case concerns the government’s collection of i sub-arg 966 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Any privacy interests implicated in this case are f sub-arg ❝ 1574 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The government may ask contract employees who have sub-arg 1349 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The government may send Form 42 to a contract emplo sub-arg 962 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Analysis Ignored The Whalen A sub-arg 2291 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A A. Under The Statutory Text and Lopez, A Second Drug P sub-arg 1847 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. Whether An Offense Is “Punishable” As A Federal Fel sub-arg 4175 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C C. Treating A Second Drug Possession Offense As An Agg sub-arg 1541 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) D D. Requiring A State Court To Find Recidivism Or Follo sub-arg 1106 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) E E. No Canon of Construction Is Required To Resolve Thi sub-arg 310 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 3582(c)(2) Represents A Narrow Exception To sub-arg 1283 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. In Booker, the Court addressed imposition of senten sub-arg 265 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. A reduction of a defendant’s sentence under Section sub-arg 1246 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. A district court does not violate the Sixth Amendme sub-arg 495 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.4 4. Limitations on the permissible extent of sentence r sub-arg 948 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Petitioner’s Proposed Rule Would Have Adverse Conse sub-arg 500 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COURTS BELOW DID NOT ERR IN FAILING TO CORRECT sub-arg 1440 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) A A. Section 3582(c)(2) Represents A Narrow Exception To sub-arg 333 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) B.1 1. A sentence is “based on” a Guidelines range only wh sub-arg 1041 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) B.2 2. The sentence of a defendant who pleads guilty under sub-arg 1930 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) B.3 3. Petitioner’s term of imprisonment was “based on” hi sub-arg 725 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) C.1 1. Plea agreements are essential to the administration sub-arg 519 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) C.2 2. The government’s construction of Section 3582(c)(2) sub-arg 292 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) C.3 3. Petitioner benefitted from his plea agreement sub-arg 400 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) C.4 4. Recognizing the binding nature of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C sub-arg 905 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) A A. Statutory Time Limits For Taking An Appeal Are Juri sub-arg 1053 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The plain language of Section 7266(a) makes clear t sub-arg 379 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The structure of the veterans judicial review syste sub-arg 1427 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The legislative history makes clear that Section 72 sub-arg 1518 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) C C. The Rule Recognized In Bowles Applies To This Case sub-arg 916 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) D D. The Pro-Veteran Orientation Of The VA Adjudication sub-arg 760 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) E E. Petitioner’s Policy Arguments Do Not Justify Treati sub-arg 1688 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. An offender’s flight in a vehicle creates a serious sub-arg 676 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. A confrontation between a fleeing offender and law sub-arg 773 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Statistical data confirms the existence of a seriou sub-arg 1888 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Vehicular flight involves purposeful conduct sub-arg 325 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Vehicular flight involves aggressive and violent co sub-arg 1670 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Determining whether an offense presents a serious p sub-arg 911 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. In determining whether vehicular flight presents a sub-arg 1408 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Vehicular flight is a violent felony, even if a Sta sub-arg 2545 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. The rule of lenity does not apply sub-arg 153 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Exclusionary Rule Was Designed To Apply Only Wh sub-arg 543 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule A sub-arg 1215 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Good-Faith Exception Applies In This Case sub-arg 962 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Exclusionary Rule Was Designed To Deter Only Po sub-arg 1096 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Applying The Good-Faith Exception In This Case Will sub-arg 2611 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Even If Petitioner’s Incentive-Based Understanding sub-arg 1388 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Retroactivity Jurisprudence Addresses Whether A De sub-arg 1167 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Application Of The Good-Faith Exception Here Would sub-arg 1719 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Leon, Krull, And Herring Are The Applicable Precede sub-arg 267 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of Exemption 2 Covers Records Concerning A sub-arg 587 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) B B. FOIA’s Statutory History Confirms The Scope Of Ex e sub-arg 1102 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court’s Decision in Rose Supports The Conclusi sub-arg 934 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) D D. Exemption 2’s Drafting History Demonstrates That Co sub-arg 2578 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) E E. Crooker Correctly Construed Exemption 2 And Congres sub-arg 1538 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) F F. The ESQD Information At Issue In This Case Was Prop sub-arg 213 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) G G. Petitioner Advances An Unduly Narrow Reading Of Ex sub-arg 1687 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Petitioner Has Brought Only An Enumerated-Powers Cl sub-arg 2052 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. A Criminal Defendant Has Standing To Argue That The sub-arg 3042 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Relying On TVA And Ot sub-arg 2694 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The term “personal privacy” itself encompasses only sub-arg 661 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. FOIA’s broader structure confirms that “personal pr sub-arg 1835 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) B B. Exemption 7(C)’s Drafting History Demonstrates That sub-arg 1627 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) C C. Exemptions 6 And 7(C) Have Been Uniformly Under sto sub-arg 1613 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Analysis Does Not Withstand S sub-arg 2381 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) E E. Adopting The Court Of Appeals’ Rationale Would Pro sub-arg 1034 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The long-recognized purpose of the state-secrets pr sub-arg 225 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The standards for and consequences of invoking the sub-arg 1123 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Petitioners are the “moving party” here because the sub-arg 808 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Neither the characterization of default termination sub-arg 1760 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The default termination in this case imposes no pun sub-arg 385 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) C C. Even If The Government Were Viewed As The “Moving P sub-arg 1826 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) D.1 1. Affirming the Federal Circuit’s judgment will not l sub-arg 494 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) D.2 2. Affirming the Federal Circuit’s judgment will not u sub-arg 538 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) E E. If This Court Reverses The Judgment Of The Court Of sub-arg 475 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of Section 3161(h)(1)(D) Automatically Exc sub-arg 994 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) B B. This Court’s Cases Establish That The Pretrial Moti sub-arg 1056 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) C C. The STA’s Structure Indicates That The Pretrial Mot sub-arg 1214 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) D D. The STA’s Legislative History Confirms That The Pre sub-arg 1061 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) E E. Automatically Excluding The Time Between The Filing sub-arg 1529 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Statutory Text Refers To “Cocaine Base,” Not “C sub-arg ❝ 1492 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Giving “Cocaine Base” Its Plain Chemical Meaning Is sub-arg 730 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Interpreting “Cocaine Base” To Include All Chemical sub-arg 2248 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioner’s Approach Creates Definitional Uncertai sub-arg 1342 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) E.1 1. Giving “cocaine base” its accepted chemical meaning sub-arg 1095 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) E.2 2. The government’s reading does not lead to absurd re sub-arg 267 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) E.3 3. The Sentencing Guidelines’ definition of “cocaine b sub-arg 586 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. The Rule Of Lenity Has No Application In This Case sub-arg 290 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The “Except” Clause, Read Naturally, Refers To Othe sub-arg 3607 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Natural Interpretation Of The Text Furthers The sub-arg 877 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Petitioners’ Interpretations Find No Support In The sub-arg 554 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner’s Interpretations Frustrate The Purpose sub-arg 1380 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Petitioners’ Interpretations Create Sentencing Anom sub-arg 2143 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Petitioners’ Interpretations Are Unsupported By The sub-arg 373 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. The Rule of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 456 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. PETITIONER LACKS STANDING TO ASSERT THE EQUAL PROTE sub-arg 1148 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Congressional Enactments Governing Immigration And sub-arg 1416 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Congress May Apply A Physical-Presence Requirement sub-arg 236 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.1 1. Reducing The Risk Of Statelessness Is An Important sub-arg 1974 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.2.a. Unwed a. Unwed U.S. Citizen Mothers And Fathers Are Not Simi sub-arg 1488 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.2.b. The S b. The Statutory Framework Is Not Premised On Stereoty sub-arg 354 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.2.c c. Congress Can Constitutionally Address An Aspect Of sub-arg 1241 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. EVEN IF THE DISTINCTIONS CONGRESS DREW IN SECTION sub-arg 2071 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) I.A A. The Law-Of-The-Case Doctrine Did Not Compel The Low sub-arg 1081 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) I.B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Mandate In Pepper III Did Not sub-arg 2175 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) II.A A. At Resentencing, The Court May Consider Information sub-arg 2374 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) II.B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Categorically Prohibi sub-arg 2892 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) III III. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE VA sub-arg 320 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The statutory text supports the full-time employee sub-arg 850 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The statutory context supports the full-time employ sub-arg 248 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The legislative history supports the full-time em p sub-arg 636 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The full-time employee rule advances FICA’s pur pos sub-arg 859 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.5 5. The full-time employee rule is consistent with the sub-arg 1149 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Contrary To Petitioners’ Contentions, The Full-Time sub-arg 911 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. FICA’s historical development indicates that resi d sub-arg 701 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Petitioners’ additional arguments are unpersuasive sub-arg 1668 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioners’ Reliance On National Muffler Is Mispla sub-arg 1356 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Plain Text Of Section 1500 Precludes CFC Juris sub-arg 3146 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The Federal Circuit erred in relying on Casman’s re sub-arg 1123 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. The Federal Circuit’s policy analysis does not just sub-arg 1808 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) II II. THE TRIBE DID NOT SEEK “DIFFERENT RELIEF ” IN DIST sub-arg 1567 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Federal courts must refrain from adjudicating gener sub-arg 1593 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. It is appropriate to resolve this case on prudentia sub-arg 722 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Under Massachusetts v. EPA, At Least Some Of The St sub-arg 2032 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) I.C C. This Case Raises Separation-Of-Powers Concerns Ad d sub-arg 1974 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) II II. ANY FEDERAL COMMON-LAW CLAIMS HAVE BEEN DISPLACED sub-arg 2502 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. This Court’s precedents establish that the United S sub-arg 733 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Executive Branch guidance makes clear that govern m sub-arg 1279 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The Federal Circuit’s rule would present profession sub-arg 998 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. That government attorneys are paid from government sub-arg 772 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. This Court’s Navajo Nation decisions preclude the F sub-arg 1514 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. No statute or regulation requires the United States sub-arg 1215 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Requiring disclosure of attorney-client privileged sub-arg 1051 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The present-tense verb in the reference to the maxi sub-arg 1325 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. ACCA’s overall structure reinforces the focus of th sub-arg 899 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Evaluating the maximum penalty as of the time of th sub-arg 1640 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The time of the prior conviction is the reference p sub-arg 860 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Even If The Maximum Penalty Associated With A Prior sub-arg 891 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. In This Case, The Maximum Sentences For Petitioner’ sub-arg 716 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Text Of Section 3582(a) Precludes A Distr sub-arg 1305 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory Context Supports Giving Section 3582( sub-arg 1708 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Construing Section 3582(a) To Prohibit Courts From sub-arg 889 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Drafting And Legislative History Confirms That sub-arg 2125 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Reasons Offered By Some Circuits For Limiting S sub-arg 896 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The text of Section 1512(a)(1)(C) makes clear that sub-arg 1165 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Section 1512(a)(1)(C) does not require proof that a sub-arg 1258 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. In order to prove a violation of Section 1512(a)(1) sub-arg 1601 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. Petitioner’s reliance on this Court’s decisions con sub-arg 592 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Principle of Constitutional Avoidance Does Not sub-arg 1082 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Under Any Understanding Of Section 1512(a)(1)(C)’s sub-arg 960 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. SORNA’s Registration Requirements Are Unqualified A sub-arg 784 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Subsection (d)’s text does not exempt any sex offen sub-arg 1134 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Reading Subsection (d) as permissive authority to r sub-arg 441 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Petitioner’s interpretation cannot be squared with sub-arg 1435 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Petitioner’s interpretation is fundamentally incon sub-arg 1475 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Five Courts Of Appeals Agree That Subsection (d) Do sub-arg 960 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Rule Of Lenity Has No Application In This Case sub-arg 380 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Prosecutors Are Entitled To Absolute Immunity For C sub-arg 818 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Seeking A Material-Witness Warrant Is A Prosecutori sub-arg 293 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Petitioner Is Entitled To Absolute Immunity For Cla sub-arg 719 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Denying Absolute Immu sub-arg 1738 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Qualified Immunity Protects Officers Unless Their C sub-arg 480 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) II.B B. An Arrest Based On A Material-Witness Warrant Does sub-arg 2993 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Even If The Use Of A Material-Witness Warrant For I sub-arg 992 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) III III. THIS COURT SHOULD VACATE THE PORTION OF THE DECIS sub-arg 227 — candidate
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper A A. Congress Did Not Clearly And Unequivocally Waive Th sub-arg 2279 — candidate
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper B B. In The Context Of The Privacy Act, The Term “Actual sub-arg 3977 — candidate
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper C C. The Ninth Circuit Erred In Construing The Privacy A sub-arg 2770 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I I. A SECTION 309(a)(3) COMPLIANCE ORDER IS A MEANS OF sub-arg 2592 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency II.A A. The Compliance Order Is Not “Final Agency Action” sub-arg 2739 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency II.B B. The CWA Precludes Pre-enforcement Judicial Review O sub-arg 2711 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency III.A A. The Issuance Of The Compliance Order Did Not Subjec sub-arg 524 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency III.B B. Because The CWA Contains Constitutionally Adequate sub-arg 1919 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A A. This Court Has Held That Congress Did Not Expressly sub-arg 728 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Section 1101(a)(13)(C) applies only to aliens who e sub-arg 1545 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Section 1101(a)(13)(C) does not impair vested right sub-arg 1602 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Section 1101(a)(13)(C) does not impair any reason a sub-arg 3439 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Section 1101(a)(13)(C) is intended to regulate futu sub-arg 930 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C C. There Is No Basis For Applying A Canon Of Construin sub-arg 250 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Section 145 authorizes judicial review of the PTO’s sub-arg 1046 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Traditional administrative-law principles govern th sub-arg 756 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Permitting introduction of new evidence that could sub-arg 745 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Permitting de novo review of issues involving new e sub-arg 1576 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) II.A A. This Court’s Analysis Of R.S. 4915 In Morgan Suppor sub-arg 894 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Under R.S. 4915, The Prevailing Judicial Practice F sub-arg 775 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) II.R R.S. 4915 sub-arg 959 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) III III. NEW EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED IN A SEC TION 145 sub-arg 1154 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The use of technology to acquire information expose sub-arg 1139 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Information that has been exposed to public view re sub-arg 1312 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The reasonable expectation of privacy in activities sub-arg 1545 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Court Should Not Depart From Its Well-Establish sub-arg 975 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Respondent Had No Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy sub-arg 339 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Attaching The Tracking Device To Respondent’s Vehic sub-arg 1015 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Attaching The Tracking Device To Respondent’s Vehic sub-arg 1023 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) III III. EVEN IF USING THE GPS TRACKING DEVICE TO MONITOR sub-arg 982 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The Longshore Act often uses “award” to mean enti t sub-arg 2032 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Like other parts of the Act, Section 906(c) contem sub-arg 3241 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The legislative history supports the Director’s int sub-arg 502 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DIRECTOR’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LONG SHORE AC sub-arg 1007 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Section 1229b(a)(2) requires that “the alien” have sub-arg 655 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Section 1229b(a)(1) requires that “the alien” seeki sub-arg 384 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Section 1229b(a)’s lack of an explicit bar to imput sub-arg 350 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. The structure of the statutory scheme is inconsiste sub-arg 409 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The legislative history furnishes no support for im sub-arg 1274 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The general preference for family unity does not tr sub-arg 908 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) C C. The Board’s Reasonable Interpretation Of Section 12 sub-arg 1781 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 1333(b) Precludes A Situs-Of-Injury Require sub-arg 1614 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) I.B B. This Court’s Decisions In Offshore Logistics And He sub-arg 879 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Petitioners’ Legislative History And Policy Argumen sub-arg 1286 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 1333(B) EXTENDS LONGSHORE ACT COVER AGE TO sub-arg ❝ 2481 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Text Of The Copyright Clause Does Not Preclude sub-arg 812 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. The First Congress granted copyright protection to sub-arg 1130 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Subsequent Congresses also restored copyright and p sub-arg 2537 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Section 514 Is A Rational Exercise Of Congress’s Co sub-arg 220 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Section 514 Does Not Trigger Heightened First Amend sub-arg 1764 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. Section 514 is narrowly tailored to ensure both act sub-arg 1223 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Section 514 is narrowly tailored to further the gov sub-arg 1097 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.3 3. Section 514 is narrowly tailored to further the gov sub-arg 213 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission I I. THE ADA’S ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISION APPLIES TO REL sub-arg 901 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.A.1 1. The Free Exercise Clause does not forbid applicatio sub-arg 426 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.A.2 2. The Free Exercise Clause does not forbid applicatio sub-arg 1725 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.B B. Petitioner’s First Amendment Right To Freedom Of As sub-arg 680 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.C.1 1. This case does not present the question of reinstat sub-arg 756 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.C.2 2. This case does not pose a risk of entanglement on a sub-arg 1639 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission III III. RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS, LIKE OTHER EMPLOY ERS, CANNO sub-arg 1412 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission IV IV. THE COURT SHOULD ADDRESS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAI sub-arg 1447 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A A. Petitioners’ Convictions For Willfully Making Mater sub-arg 1117 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Subparagraph (M)(ii) is not a specific rule that im sub-arg 1809 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The canon counseling avoidance of superfluities doe sub-arg 2290 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The structure of the Sentencing Guidelines does not sub-arg 483 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. Principles of lenity do not call for a different re sub-arg 691 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Given the statute’s reference to waiving grounds of sub-arg 1343 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. In applying a grounds-based approach, it is reason sub-arg 360 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The statutory-counterpart rule does not make Sectio sub-arg 460 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. There was no established pre-2005 practice of treat sub-arg 2153 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Board, more generally, had long used a groundsb sub-arg 823 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C C. The Board’s Application Of Its Statutory-Counterpar sub-arg 1378 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) D D. The Statutory-Counterpart Rule Does Not Raise Equal sub-arg 1267 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. The Executive Branch has consistently exercised sol sub-arg 1534 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The courts have long acknowledged the Executive’s e sub-arg 1109 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The President’s recognition power includes the au t sub-arg 499 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Executive Has Inherent Constitutional Authority sub-arg 1725 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) II II. THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S PASSPORT POLICY IM PLEMENTS sub-arg 805 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The Political Question Doctrine Holds That Courts M sub-arg 518 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) III.B B. A Plaintiff ’s Reliance On A Statutory Right Cannot sub-arg ❝ 1393 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Petitioner’s Claim Based On Section 214(d) Presents sub-arg 958 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) IV IV. SECTION 214(d) IMPERMISSIBLY INFRINGES THE PRESIDE sub-arg 864 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.1 1. Under Section 3584(a), authority to order consecuti sub-arg 608 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. Section 3584(a)’s limitations cannot be read out of sub-arg 716 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.3 3. The sentencing factors Congress prescribed cannot r sub-arg 500 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A.4 4. Construing Section 3584(a) to reach future sentence sub-arg 627 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Legislative History Confirms That Section 3584( sub-arg 648 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Sentencing Commission Has Read Section 3584(a) sub-arg 282 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The District Court Has No Inherent Authority To Dis sub-arg 405 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Later-Sentencing Court Is Better Positioned To sub-arg 641 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. The BOP has statutory discretion to allow a federal sub-arg 1162 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Consecutive-sentencing orders that are not autho ri sub-arg 466 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Chapter 12 distinguishes between pre-petition claim sub-arg 1545 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Section 1222(a)(2)(A) does not bring post-petition sub-arg 760 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The Chapter 13 framework indicates that a Chapter 1 sub-arg 291 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Reading the Bankruptcy and Internal Revenue Codes t sub-arg 1475 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Petitioners’ interpretation of the phrase “incurred sub-arg 2444 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The treatment of post-petition income taxes under C sub-arg 392 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The phrase “omi[ssion] from gross income” is natu r sub-arg 1443 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Adjacent statutory provisions reinforce the inferen sub-arg 913 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The statutory purpose strongly supports extending t sub-arg 959 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The final regulation was validly promulgated sub-arg 676 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The final regulation applies to this case sub-arg 2002 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The final regulation is entitled to deference sub-arg 798 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. The final regulation is not impermissibly retroacti sub-arg 974 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. When it amended the relevant statutory provision in sub-arg 715 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The Court in Colony construed the pre-1954 version sub-arg 495 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Colony does not control the interpretation of curre sub-arg 340 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. In any event, the Treasury regulation resolves the sub-arg 822 — candidate
Astrue v. Capato - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of The Act Makes Clear That Section 416(h) sub-arg 2505 — candidate
Astrue v. Capato - Brief (Merits) B B. Legislative History Confirms That The Applicant Mus sub-arg 922 — candidate
Astrue v. Capato - Brief (Merits) C C. The SSA’s Interpretation Of The Act Is Consistent W sub-arg 1027 — candidate
Astrue v. Capato - Brief (Merits) D D. The SSA’s Interpretation Of The Act Is Entitled To sub-arg 952 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Under The Constitution And The INA, The Federal Gov sub-arg 1352 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. S.B. 1070 Would Supplant Federal Policy With A New sub-arg 950 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Arizona has no inherent power to impose criminal pu sub-arg ❝ 938 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. Section 3 conflicts with the purposes and objective sub-arg 608 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. Congress has specified that the INA’s employment re sub-arg 891 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Section 5 impermissibly adds a punishment Congress sub-arg 1250 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. In Our Federal System, State And Local Officers May sub-arg 866 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Section 2 Impermissibly Requires Arizona Officers T sub-arg 1548 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Section 6 Impermissibly Authorizes State Officers T sub-arg 604 — candidate
United States v. Bormes - Briefs (Merits) A A. The Tucker Acts Do Not Create Liability Under Statu sub-arg 3549 — candidate
United States v. Bormes - Briefs (Merits) B B. The Tucker Acts’ Remedial Scheme Irreconcilably Con sub-arg 2908 — candidate
United States v. Bormes - Briefs (Merits) C C. FCRA Does Not Demonstrate Congressional Intent To E sub-arg 4289 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Harmless-error analysis applies an objective inquir sub-arg 2523 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The court of appeals stated the correct standard sub-arg 454 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Inferences drawn from jury conduct are unreliable g sub-arg 1191 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Does Not Violate The sub-arg 567 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The government’s case was very strong sub-arg 1282 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The defense case was very weak sub-arg 784 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The prejudicial impact of the error was not signifi sub-arg 1425 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Quiet Title Act Prohibits The Relief Sought In sub-arg 296 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Patchak May Not Invoke 5 U.S.C. 702 To Circumvent T sub-arg 1894 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. Section 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity is inap sub-arg 792 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The purposes underlying the Quiet Title Act’s “In d sub-arg 847 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The United States has not waived its sovereign im m sub-arg 1355 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Patchak’s Alleged Injuries Are Unrelated To The Int sub-arg 730 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Analyzing The Interes sub-arg 1433 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Court Of Appeals Erroneously Conflated Article sub-arg 296 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) I I. THE SEVERABILITY OF MOST PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MAY sub-arg 2826 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Court Invalidates As Inseverable No More Of A S sub-arg 354 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate That It Is “Evident sub-arg 3771 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Guaranteed-Issue And Community-Rating Provi sio sub-arg 2500 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) A A. Congress Has Broad Authority Under The Spending Cla sub-arg 1388 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The extension of Medicaid eligibility in the Afford sub-arg 1055 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. A State’s reluctance to turn down federal Medicaid sub-arg 4435 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. There is no merit to petitioners’ contention that v sub-arg 819 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) C C. There Is No Basis To Believe That Congress Would Ha sub-arg 415 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) I.A A. A Specialized Statutory Review Scheme Precludes Fre sub-arg 1727 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Congress Intended That Judicial Review Of Constitu sub-arg 2473 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Petitioners Could Obtain Full And Fair Judicial Rev sub-arg 3837 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Availability Of Judicial Review Under The CSRA sub-arg 2503 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Congress Has Plenary Authority Over The Use Of Publ sub-arg 1099 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Since FY 1994, Congress Has Expressly Capped The Ap sub-arg 1091 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.C.1 1. The ISDA does not empower the Secretary to obligate sub-arg 497 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.C.2 2. The Secretary consequently could not bind the Unite sub-arg 901 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Congress Expressly Reserved Its Discretion To Contr sub-arg 1781 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. The Secretary did not promise to pay respondents’ c sub-arg 310 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Respondents’ contract claims fail on their own term sub-arg 444 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.B.3 3. The Tenth Circuit’s “single contractor in isolation sub-arg 1779 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Judgment Fund Does Not Permit Litigants To Cir sub-arg 531 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to conf sub-arg 772 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The history of the crack/powder sentencing disparit sub-arg 890 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Congress understood that the Commission could not e sub-arg 781 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The history of the FSA corroborates Congress’s inte sub-arg 836 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The purpose of the FSA reinforces Congress’s intent sub-arg 729 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Section 109 provides a default rule that is overcom sub-arg 523 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Congress clearly expressed its intent that the FSA’ sub-arg 632 — candidate
Southern Union Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Oregon v. Ice Makes Clear That Any Expansion Of App sub-arg 1606 — candidate
Southern Union Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Fines Do Not Implicate The Core Concerns Underlying sub-arg 2464 — candidate
Southern Union Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Criminal Fines Lie Outside The Jury’s Traditional D sub-arg 4501 — candidate
Southern Union Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Extending Apprendi To Criminal Fines Would Interfer sub-arg 1664 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) A A. Respondents’ Asserted Future Injuries Are Conjectur sub-arg 3438 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Self-Inflicted Harms Are Not Cognizable Injuries In sub-arg 1460 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Respondents Failed To Establish That Their As serte sub-arg 775 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text And Statutory Context Of The LawEnforcemen sub-arg 1686 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Legislative History Confirms The Scope Of The P sub-arg 719 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Third Circuit’s Reading Of The Law-Enforcement sub-arg 1046 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Law-Enforcement Proviso Waives Sovereign Im mun sub-arg 663 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. I.A A. To Trigger The State Action Doctrine, State Law Mus sub-arg 1856 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. I.B B. The Relevant Georgia-Law Provisions Do Not Suggest, sub-arg 2355 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. I.C C. The Decision Below Typifies A Recurring Misunder st sub-arg 1813 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. II.A A. The Transaction At Issue Here Creates A Private Mo sub-arg 928 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. II.B B. Active Supervision Is Lacking Here sub-arg 882 — candidate
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. - Brief (Merits) A A. Well-Established Principles Of Administrative Law P sub-arg 3780 — candidate
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. - Brief (Merits) B B. Congress Did Not Intend To Subject The 180-Day Admi sub-arg 4078 — candidate
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. - Brief (Merits) C C. The 180-Day Administrative Appeal Deadline Is Not “ sub-arg 1725 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission I.A A. In Fraud Cases, The Discovery Rule Commences The Ru sub-arg 2636 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission I.B B. This Case Does Not Present The Question Of When Sec sub-arg 693 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II.A.1 1. Federal courts have consistently applied the fraud sub-arg 1047 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II.A.2 2. The historical exception covers cases of fraud as w sub-arg 1246 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II.B B. In Fraud Cases, The Discovery Rule Is Read Into Fed sub-arg 1406 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II.C C. When Congress Has Explicitly Addressed Discovery In sub-arg 868 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II.D D. The Fraud Discovery Rule Applies Equally To The Gov sub-arg 1149 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II.E E. The Fraud Discovery Rule Balances The Need For Re p sub-arg 696 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II.F F. The Fraud Discovery Rule Has Proved To Be Judiciall sub-arg 949 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. A waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivo cal sub-arg 346 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Dolan’s narrow exception is inapplicable to this ca sub-arg 446 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The text, structure, and purpose of the Gonzalez Ac sub-arg 2816 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Amicus’s interpretation would create anomalous dis sub-arg 820 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Amicus’s policy arguments fail to account for the p sub-arg 2644 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission A.1 1. Chevron reflects congressional intent and principle sub-arg 750 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission A.2 2. This Court has consistently applied Chevron to ques sub-arg 449 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission A.3 3. There is no sound reason for this Court to alter it sub-arg 2081 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission B.1 1. When Congress intends to exempt part of an agency’s sub-arg 656 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission B.2 2. Chevron does not require a provision-by-provision s sub-arg 268 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission B.3 3. Because Section 332(c)(7) includes no express nega sub-arg 566 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission C C. Chevron Applies With Full Force To Agency Interpret sub-arg 494 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission D D. The FCC’s Conclusion That It Has Authority To Promu sub-arg 1096 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Text Of Sections 7702 And 7703 Dictate That An sub-arg 3071 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Requiring Review In The Federal Circuit Of Non-Meri sub-arg 1891 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONER CANNOT CIRCUMVENT THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S sub-arg 2580 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. This Court has consistently held that temporary flo sub-arg 4609 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Any incremental flooding resulting from each of the sub-arg ❝ 1217 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. A takings claim based on flooding of private lands sub-arg 1155 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The circumstances of this case weigh strongly again sub-arg 3092 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The categorical approach focuses on the elements of sub-arg 604 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The elements of petitioner’s state conviction corre sub-arg 254 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Neither drug quantity nor remuneration is an ele me sub-arg 1254 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Invoking exceptions such as Section 841(b)(4) to ca sub-arg 1875 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. By providing aliens an opportunity to proffer evi d sub-arg 1001 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C C. The Decision Below Is Consistent With CarachuriRose sub-arg 896 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) D D. No Canon Of Construction Warrants A Different Con c sub-arg 393 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The reasonableness of a warrantless seizure is dete sub-arg 410 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Balancing those concerns, Summers held as a cate go sub-arg 782 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Summers and later cases confirm that the manner in sub-arg 619 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. Accordingly, no federal court of appeals has adopte sub-arg 430 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. When officers observe an occupant depart premises s sub-arg 662 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Summers rejected a strict geographic limit on where sub-arg 1101 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. An occupant who has departed the premises may flee sub-arg 1151 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. An occupant who has departed the premises may re tu sub-arg 1891 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. An occupant who has departed the premises may be re sub-arg 376 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.4 4. Detaining an occupant away from the premises avoids sub-arg 338 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) C.5 5. Detaining an occupant away from the premises avoids sub-arg 161 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Detaining An Occupant A Short Distance From The Pre sub-arg 849 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Petitioner’s Geographic Limit Is Artificial, Unnece sub-arg 885 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Overwhelming Majority Of Federal And State Ap p sub-arg 1148 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Padilla Opinions Confirm That Padilla Announced sub-arg ❝ 1843 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Reasonable Jurists Could Have Concluded, Based On T sub-arg 1767 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Padilla’s Holding Is Not Simply An Application Of S sub-arg 1170 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Petitioner’s Argument That The Teague Bar On Retro sub-arg 189 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Teague Rule Applies On Collateral Review Of Fed sub-arg 1805 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Teague Rule Applies To Ineffective-Assistance-O sub-arg ❝ 2373 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Government Established Every Element Necessary sub-arg 1095 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Congress Allocated To The Defendant The Burden Of P sub-arg 1639 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Substantial Practical Considerations Support Placin sub-arg 2098 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Placing The Burden On The Defendant To Establish Wi sub-arg 3509 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Even If Petitioner Were Correct That The Government sub-arg 1098 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Rule 52(b) grants courts the limited authority to c sub-arg 1652 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The text of Rule 52(b) indicates that an error must sub-arg 1200 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The history of plain-error review and Rule 52(b) co sub-arg 1518 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. Requiring an error to be plain at the time it occur sub-arg 1936 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. This Court in Johnson relaxed the plain-error stan sub-arg 1542 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Principles of retroactivity bear on the existence o sub-arg 870 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Various policy considerations do not warrant mea su sub-arg 1609 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THIS COURT HAS ENDORSED LEGISLATIVE AUTHOR ITY TO R sub-arg 1077 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Harris Held That Section 924(c)(1)(A)’s Brandishing sub-arg 446 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner Provides No Reason To Reconsider Harris’ sub-arg 1268 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Penalties Set Forth In Section 924(c)(1)(A) Are sub-arg 1181 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Mandatory Minimums Like Section 924(c)(1)(A) Assign sub-arg 1409 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B.1 1. McMillan and Harris are consistent with Apprendi sub-arg 2905 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B.2 2. History casts no doubt on the constitutionality of sub-arg 2631 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Stare Decisis Supports The Continuing Validity Of M sub-arg 1107 — candidate
Descamps v. United States A.1 1. The categorical and modified categorical approaches sub-arg 748 — candidate
Descamps v. United States A.2 2. Judicial interpretations of state criminal statutes sub-arg 1845 — candidate
Descamps v. United States A.3 3. No sound justification supports limiting the modifi sub-arg 1658 — candidate
Descamps v. United States A.4 4. Petitioner’s constitutional and practical concerns sub-arg 1293 — candidate
Descamps v. United States B.1 1. A conviction under California Penal Code § 459 re q sub-arg 1088 — candidate
Descamps v. United States B.2 2. Two elements of California Penal Code § 459 categor sub-arg 1827 — candidate
Descamps v. United States C C. The Shepard Records In Petitioner’s Case Establish sub-arg ❝ 605 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) A A. Congress Has Wide Latitude To Attach Conditions To sub-arg 827 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The policy condition is an appropriate step to ensu sub-arg 1736 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Congress determined that the policy condition is an sub-arg 2259 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 7631(f) Is Not Unconstitutional On The Ra t sub-arg 933 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) D D. Section 7631(f) Does Not Aim At The Suppression Of sub-arg 865 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) E E. Section 7631(f) Is Not A Direct Speech Regulation B sub-arg 1010 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) F F. The Agencies’ Affiliation Guidelines Obviate Any Co sub-arg ❝ 1341 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) G G. Respondents’ Vagueness Challenge Is Not Presented A sub-arg 900 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. A A. Property Owners Have No Just Compensation Claim Aga sub-arg 957 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. B B. Petitioners May Not Assert Producer Claims In An AM sub-arg 832 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. C.1 1. Any exception to the Tucker Act for a “direct trans sub-arg 2551 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. C.2 2. Property owners may not assert the Just Compensatio sub-arg ❝ 2772 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. C.3 3. The AMAA’s language, context, and history do not re sub-arg 1485 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) A A. The Harmless-Error And Plain-Error Standards Of Re sub-arg 827 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Rule 11(c)(1) errors are not necessarily prejudicia sub-arg 557 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Courts lack authority to disregard Rules 11(h) and sub-arg 1190 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Rule 11(c)(1) errors are not structural sub-arg 1561 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. The court of appeals’ approach unnecessarily under sub-arg 499 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court Should Remand To Allow The Court Of Ap p sub-arg 352 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text Of The Vaccine Act Does Not Permit An Awar sub-arg 1114 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) B B. Awarding Attorneys’ Fees And Costs On An Untimely P sub-arg 2459 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. Principles of sovereign immunity disfavor the recov sub-arg 706 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. An interpretation of the Vaccine Act that authorize sub-arg 321 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. Consistent with this Court’s approach to the interp sub-arg 233 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) D D. Other Reasons Given For The En Banc Majority’s Hold sub-arg 860 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) A.1 1. Gay and lesbian people have been subject to a his t sub-arg ❝ 1407 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) A.2 2. Sexual orientation bears no relation to ability to sub-arg 568 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) A.3 3. Gay and lesbian people possess a distinguishing cha sub-arg 566 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) A.4 4. Gay and lesbian people are minorities with lim ited sub-arg 676 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) B.1 1. Morality sub-arg 460 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) B.2 2. Traditional Definition of Marriage sub-arg 389 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) B.3 3. Procreation and child-rearing sub-arg ❝ 658 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) B.4 4. Sovereign Choice sub-arg 323 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) B.5 5. Federal fisc sub-arg 289 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) B.6 6. Other Interests Asserted by BLAG sub-arg ❝ 1078 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) C C. The Government Does Not Challenge The Constitu tion sub-arg 841 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Property under the Hobbs Act is not limited to tang sub-arg 3159 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The right to pursue one’s existing business or occu sub-arg 1398 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The General Counsel’s right to give disinterested l sub-arg 1467 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Petitioner Attempted To Use Threats Of Fear To “Ob sub-arg 1800 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments Are Without Merit sub-arg 519 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. I.A A. Reverse-Payment Agreements Closely Resemble Other H sub-arg 1240 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. I.B B. Reverse-Payment Agreements Do Not Further, And In I sub-arg 1753 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. I.C C. Reverse-Payment Agreements Frustrate The Purposes O sub-arg 480 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. I.D D. Reverse-Payment Agreements Are Appropriately Treate sub-arg 2001 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. II.A A. The Scope-Of-The-Patent Approach Inappropriately In sub-arg 912 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. II.B B. The Scope-Of-The-Patent Approach Relies On An Uncri sub-arg 774 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. II.C.1 1. The particular risks to brand-name manufacturers fr sub-arg 584 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. II.C.2 2. The possibility that other generic manufacturers wi sub-arg 309 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. II.D D. The “Quick Look” Approach Is Preferable To An Alter sub-arg 574 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. III III. THE FTC’S COMPLAINT STATES A CLAIM UPON WHICH REL sub-arg 322 — candidate
United States v. Kebodeaux - Brief (Merits) I.A A. In 1999, Respondent Was Already Subject To A Federa sub-arg ❝ 1513 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) U U.S.C. 901 sub-arg 277 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. Under U.S. tax principles, it is common for the val sub-arg 1174 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The windfall tax is computed using a formula that i sub-arg 868 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. A tax that is calculated using profits as a variabl sub-arg 1507 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. A tax on value that is not confiscatory of net gain sub-arg 1390 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The windfall tax does not satisfy the realization t sub-arg 574 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. The windfall tax does not satisfy the grossreceipts sub-arg 628 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) C.3 3. The windfall tax does not satisfy the net-income te sub-arg 1332 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) D D. The Legislative History Of The U.K. Act Does Not Su sub-arg 1006 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) E E. Disallowing A Foreign Tax Credit For Petitioner’s P sub-arg 239 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission I.A A. The Court In Buckley Declined To Apply Strict Scrut sub-arg 430 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission I.B B. Appellants’ Arguments For Applying Strict Scrutiny sub-arg 1416 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission I.C C. Appellants Provide No Sound Reason To Overrule Buck sub-arg ❝ 1690 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission II.A A. The Court In Buckley Upheld FECA’s Base And Aggre g sub-arg 593 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission II.B B. FECA’s Current Aggregate Contribution Limits Serve sub-arg 2297 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission II.C.1 1. The current version of FECA has not changed in any sub-arg 1568 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission II.C.2 2. Appellants’ challenges to FECA’s aggregate contribu sub-arg 1710 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The basis-overstatement penalty applicable here “re sub-arg 1415 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The IRS and the courts can determine the “applica b sub-arg 1080 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. The plain text of Section 6662 makes the basisovers sub-arg 1192 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The Blue Book does not support the interpretation o sub-arg 1390 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Under the court of appeals’ interpretation of Secti sub-arg 358 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Non-Binding Provisions That Inform The Exercise Of sub-arg ❝ 2479 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Seeking advice from the most current Sentencing Gui sub-arg ❝ 1381 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Section 3553(a) permissibly lists the most current sub-arg ❝ 2852 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause do not app sub-arg 1010 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Petitioner’s Approach To Ex Post Facto Analysis Is sub-arg ❝ 1645 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A A. When Congress Enacted Section 5, And In Its Previou sub-arg 1883 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.1.a. Evide a. Evidence from the Section 5 process sub-arg 2330 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.1.b. Other b. Other evidence of ongoing discrimination sub-arg 1057 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Petitioner’s Attempts To Minimize The Legislative R sub-arg 1118 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. Section 5 is appropriately tailored to remedy the d sub-arg 2273 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 5’s Geographic Scope Is Tailored To The Pro sub-arg 2637 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) A A. Respondent Violated Section 1382 By Reentering And sub-arg 1718 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) B B. An Exclusive-Possession Limitation Cannot Permissib sub-arg 1552 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) C C. An Exclusive-Possession Limitation Would Threaten S sub-arg 1140 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) D D. Although This Court Should Not Address Respondent’s sub-arg ❝ 423 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency I.A A. The Text, Purpose, And History Of The PSD Program S sub-arg 881 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency I.B.1 1. The PSD program’s inclusion of features specific to sub-arg 358 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency I.B.2 2. The PSD program is not limited to “local” pollutant sub-arg 653 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency I.B.3 3. No absurd consequences arise from enforcing the PSD sub-arg 766 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency I.B.4 4. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. is inapposi sub-arg 487 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency II.A A. In Administering The PSD Program, The EPA Has Permi sub-arg ❝ 512 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency II.B.1 1. Petitioners offer no compelling reason to interpret sub-arg 937 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency II.B.2 2. The absurdity of implementing PSD and Title V permi sub-arg 1193 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency II.B.3 3. There is no merit to petitioners’ argument that the sub-arg 949 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency III III. THE EPA PERMISSIBLY CONCLUDED THAT THE TITLE V PR sub-arg 299 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The text of the 1875 Act shows that Congress pro vi sub-arg 3115 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. Stalker and Steinke confirm that the public lands s sub-arg ❝ 1076 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. The legislative debate shows that the 1875 Act gran sub-arg ❝ 438 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.4 4. Later statutes implementing the 1875 Act’s re quire sub-arg 2930 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Great Northern Did Not Address The Question Of Re v sub-arg ❝ 2294 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP A.1 1. The court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by i sub-arg 1230 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP A.2 2. The court of appeals disregarded statutory require sub-arg 2309 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP B.1 1. The court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by i sub-arg 2180 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP B.2 2. On the merits, the court of appeals erred in invali sub-arg 3443 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning A.1 1. The constitutional text authorizes appointments dur sub-arg 1303 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning A.2 2. Intra-session recess appointments are necessary to sub-arg 509 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning A.3 3. Long-standing practice supports intra-session reces sub-arg 1666 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning B.1 1. The reference to “Vacancies that may happen during sub-arg 672 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning B.2 2. The Clause’s purposes are best served by allowing t sub-arg 846 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning B.3 3. Since the 1820s, the vast majority of Presidents ha sub-arg 1054 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning B.4 4. Before 1823, there was no settled understanding tha sub-arg 1132 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning C.1 1. The Senate is in recess when it cannot receive comm sub-arg 559 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning C.2 2. Despite the pro-forma sessions, the 20-day period a sub-arg 1254 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning C.3 3. The mere possibility that the Senate might suspend sub-arg 533 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning C.4 4. Historical practice does not support the use of pro sub-arg 1041 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning C.5 5. Even assuming the pro-forma sessions could satisfy sub-arg 1141 — candidate
United States v. Castleman A A. Section 921(a)(33)(A) Does Not Require “Violent” Fo sub-arg ❝ 2516 — candidate
United States v. Castleman B B. Even If “Violent” Physical Force Is Required, An As sub-arg 1122 — candidate
United States v. Castleman C C. The District Court’s More Expansive Holding That Th sub-arg ❝ 1558 — candidate
United States v. Castleman D D. Interpreting Section 922(g)(9) To Require The Use O sub-arg 1857 — candidate
United States v. Castleman E E. The Statute’s History Further Confirms That Only Th sub-arg ❝ 710 — candidate
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. A A. FICA’s Expansive Definition Of “Wages” Encom passes sub-arg 2853 — candidate
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. B.1 1. Section 3402(o) has no bearing on FICA’s defini tio sub-arg 1495 — candidate
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. B.2 2. Payments covered by 26 U.S.C. 3402(o)(2)(A) can als sub-arg ❝ 2381 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.U U.S.C. 922(a)(6) BY FALSELY STATING HE WAS THE ACTUAL sub-arg 148 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.A A. The True Identity Of A Firearm Purchaser Is Materia sub-arg 807 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.B.1 1. Petitioner was not the actual buyer of the firearm sub-arg ❝ 1255 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.B.2 2. The legal eligibility of the actual buyer to acquir sub-arg ❝ 1549 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.B.3 3. The dealer could not have lawfully sold petitioner sub-arg 459 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.B.3 actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s sub-arg 96 — candidate
Abramski v. United States II II. PETITIONER VIOLATED 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A) BY MAKI sub-arg 1133 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 229 Broadly Prohibits Knowing Use Of A Chem sub-arg 168 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.1 1. Petitioner’s interpretation of the statute is forec sub-arg 431 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.2 2. Petitioner’s interpretation is incompatible with th sub-arg 310 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B.3 3. Section 229 cannot be interpreted to include a terr sub-arg 320 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.1 1. Section 229 is part of a comprehensive scheme of co sub-arg 1785 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A.2 2. The Commerce Power basis for Section 229 is properl sub-arg 361 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. The Treaty Power is exclusively federal sub-arg 429 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. It has long been settled that the Treaty Power ex t sub-arg 4564 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B.3 3. There is no basis for overruling Holland sub-arg 2034 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Due Process Clause requires petitioners to esta sub-arg 543 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The grand jury’s decision to indict has historicall sub-arg 2383 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 3. Reliance on the grand jury’s determination of proba sub-arg 1754 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Petitioners’ interest in retaining counsel of choic sub-arg 593 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. The governmental interests that would be compro mis sub-arg 1503 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The value of an adversary evidentiary hearing to re sub-arg 1102 — candidate
Burrage v. United States I.A.1 1. Criminal law generally does not insist on but-for c sub-arg 1256 — candidate
Burrage v. United States I.A.2 2. “Contributing cause” is the appropriate test for ca sub-arg 1073 — candidate
Burrage v. United States I.A.3 3. The “death results” provision in particular is sati sub-arg 1133 — candidate
Burrage v. United States I.B B. Petitioner was properly convicted under the “death sub-arg 516 — candidate
Burrage v. United States II.A A. The “death results” provision does not require a se sub-arg 1658 — candidate
Burrage v. United States II.B B. Petitioner’s argument that a separate instruction o sub-arg ❝ 1011 — candidate
Burrage v. United States II.C C. Congress has long acquiesced in lower courts’ unifo sub-arg 441 — candidate
Burrage v. United States II.D D. The “death results” provision would require a jury sub-arg 604 — candidate
Burrage v. United States II.E E. If adopted, petitioner’s foreseeability argument wo sub-arg 325 — candidate
Paroline v. United States A A. Section 2259’s Causation Requirements Must Be In te sub-arg ❝ 626 — candidate
Paroline v. United States B.1 1. The defendant’s offense must be a cause in fact of sub-arg 1991 — candidate
Paroline v. United States B.2 2. The defendant’s offense must also proximately cause sub-arg 2715 — candidate
Paroline v. United States C C. The Case-Specific Arguments Raised By Petitioner Ar sub-arg 643 — candidate
Paroline v. United States D.1 1. The restitution award must be greater than zero sub-arg 298 — candidate
Paroline v. United States D.2 2. Joint and several liability for all of the victim’s sub-arg 1219 — candidate
Paroline v. United States D.3 3. The district court should have discretion to alloca sub-arg 550 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Under The Plain Text Of The MVRA, The Proper Meas u sub-arg 2568 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Structure Of The MVRA Confirms That The Propert sub-arg 593 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Purpose Of The MVRA Confirms That The Property sub-arg ❝ 1560 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Petitioner Directly And Proximately Caused The Vict sub-arg 1815 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Mortgage Law Principles Do Not Dictate The Amount O sub-arg 1006 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) F F. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 254 — candidate
United States v. Wong A A. Whether Equitable Tolling Is Available Turns On Sta sub-arg 593 — candidate
United States v. Wong B.1 1. Congress used the exact language that this Court ha sub-arg 1609 — candidate
United States v. Wong B.2 2. Congress enacted the FTCA time bar against backgrou sub-arg 1283 — candidate
United States v. Wong B.3 3. Other aspects of the FTCA’s text and history confir sub-arg 1080 — candidate
United States v. Wong C.1 1. Congress addressed hardship cases by extending the sub-arg 248 — candidate
United States v. Wong C.2 2. Congress reenacted Section 2401(b) in 1966 against sub-arg 961 — candidate
United States v. Wong C.3 3. Congress enacted numerous private laws “conferring sub-arg 371 — candidate
United States v. Wong C.4 4. Congress consistently rejected proposals to authori sub-arg 322 — candidate
United States v. Wong C.5 5. Congress in 1988 provided a narrow exception to Sec sub-arg 471 — candidate
United States v. June A A. Whether Equitable Tolling Is Available Turns On Sta sub-arg 593 — candidate
United States v. June B.1 1. Congress used the exact language that this Court ha sub-arg 1609 — candidate
United States v. June B.2 2. Congress enacted the FTCA time bar against backgrou sub-arg 1283 — candidate
United States v. June B.3 3. Other aspects of the FTCA’s text and history confir sub-arg 1085 — candidate
United States v. June C.1 1. Congress addressed hardship cases by extending the sub-arg 248 — candidate
United States v. June C.2 2. Congress reenacted Section 2401(b) in 1966 against sub-arg 961 — candidate
United States v. June C.3 3. Congress enacted numerous private laws “conferring sub-arg 364 — candidate
United States v. June C.4 4. Congress consistently rejected proposals to authori sub-arg 322 — candidate
United States v. June C.5 5. Congress in 1988 provided a narrow exception to Sec sub-arg 471 — candidate
United States v. June D D. Additional Features Of The Two-Year Time Limit Unde sub-arg 890 — candidate
Wood v. Moss A A. Respondents Had No Clearly Established Constitu tio sub-arg ❝ 3880 — candidate
Wood v. Moss B B. Respondents Did Not Adequately Plead That Peti tion sub-arg ❝ 3880 — candidate
United States v. Wurie A.1 1. Officers have authority to search any item found on sub-arg 3919 — candidate
United States v. Wurie A.2 2. Even if officers’ search authority were subject to sub-arg 3845 — candidate
United States v. Wurie A.3 3. The search-incident-to-arrest doctrine justifies a sub-arg 252 — candidate
United States v. Wurie B.1 1. Officers may search an arrestee’s cell phone when t sub-arg ❝ 928 — candidate
United States v. Wurie B.2 2. If the Court concludes that cell phones raise mater sub-arg 1638 — candidate
United States v. Wurie C C. The Search Of The Call Log Of Respondent’s Cell Pho sub-arg 459 — candidate
United States v. Clarke A A. The IRS’s Summons Authority Is Broad And Should Be sub-arg 1502 — candidate
United States v. Clarke B B. When A Summons Opponent Offers Only An Unsup ported sub-arg 2297 — candidate
United States v. Clarke C C. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In sub-arg 536 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States A.1 1. The statutory text and structure show that Section sub-arg 2030 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States A.2 2. Section 1344 uses the word “or” in its normal disju sub-arg 1867 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States A.3 3. Petitioner fails to provide any textual justificati sub-arg 385 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States A.4 4. Neither Section 1344’s purpose nor principles of le sub-arg 1419 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States A.5 5. A requirement that the means selected to execute th sub-arg 1222 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States A.6 6. Petitioner waived his evidentiary sufficiency argum sub-arg 733 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States B.1 1. A risk-of-loss requirement has no basis in the text sub-arg 583 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States B.2 2. Petitioner’s risk-of-loss element is unsound sub-arg 1159 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. I.A A. RFRA Does Not Grant Free-Exercise Rights To ForProf sub-arg ❝ 1814 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. I.B B. RFRA Does Not Authorize Claims That Disregard Funda sub-arg 817 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. II II. THE GREENS’ EXERCISE OF RELIGION IS NOT BURDENED B sub-arg 1323 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. III III. RESPONDENTS’ RELIGIOUS EXERCISE IS NOT SUBSTANTIA sub-arg 1569 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. IV.A.1 1. Protection of rights of corporate-respondents’ empl sub-arg ❝ 1839 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. IV.A.2 2. Public health sub-arg 812 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. IV.A.3 3. Equal access for women to health-care services sub-arg 409 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. IV.A.4 4. The government’s compelling interests are not under sub-arg 1432 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. IV.B B. Respondents’ Alternative Proposal Is Not A Less Res sub-arg 253 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius I I. CONTRACEPTIVE-COVERAGE PROVISION DOES NOT VIOLATE T sub-arg ❝ 1146 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius II.A A. Petitioners Do Not State A Cognizable RFRA Claim sub-arg ❝ 4912 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius II.B.1 1. The contraceptive-coverage provision advances compe sub-arg 3585 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius II.B.2 2. Petitioners’ alternative proposals are not lessrest sub-arg 487 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.A.1 1. Article II of the Constitution assigns the recognit sub-arg ❝ 1947 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.A.2 2. Structural and functional considerations confirm th sub-arg 1086 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.B.1 1. The Executive has consistently asserted sole author sub-arg ❝ 823 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.B.2 2. Congress has acquiesced in the President’s sole rec sub-arg 1306 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.B.3 3. Petitioner’s attempt to demonstrate that Congress h sub-arg 735 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.C C. This Court And Individual Justices Have Repeatedly sub-arg 553 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry II.A.1 1. The Executive possesses constitutional authority ov sub-arg 569 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry II.A.2 2. Any passport legislation must be in furtherance of sub-arg ❝ 593 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry II.B.1 1. The place-of-birth designation on passports and rep sub-arg 818 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry II.B.2 2. Section 214(d) unconstitutionally interferes with t sub-arg ❝ 1700 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean A.1 1. The term “by law” in Section 2302(b)(8)(A) includes sub-arg ❝ 2274 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean A.2 2. Section 114(r)(1) itself “specifically prohibit[s]” sub-arg ❝ 1588 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean B B. Allowing Federal Employees To Publicly Disclose SSI sub-arg ❝ 1788 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n A A. The APA Categorically Exempts Interpretive Rules Fr sub-arg ❝ 1132 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n B B. Congress Designed The APA’s Exemption For Interpret sub-arg 1454 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n C C. The APA Specifies The Maximum Procedural Requiremen sub-arg 395 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n D D. MBA’s Defense Of The Paralyzed Veterans Doctrine Is sub-arg 1414 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R A.1 1. Congress may condition the effectiveness of regulat sub-arg 1303 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R A.2 2. By providing for a government-appointed arbitrator sub-arg 755 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R A.3 3. Any sanction against a freight railroad must be bas sub-arg 1710 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R B.1 1. Congress’s undoubted power to exempt Amtrak from fe sub-arg 700 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R B.2 2. The federal government’s controls over Amtrak’s mis sub-arg 1153 — candidate
Kerry v. Din A A. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Holding That A U.S. C sub-arg 4146 — candidate
Kerry v. Din B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Imposing Judicial Rev sub-arg ❝ 5600 — candidate
Henderson v. United States I I. RULE 41(G) DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE A TRANSFER OF PROPE sub-arg 448 — candidate
Henderson v. United States II.A A. Convicted Felons May Not Actually Or Constructively sub-arg 575 — candidate
Henderson v. United States II.B B. It Is Possible For A Convicted Felon To Transfer Hi sub-arg ❝ 2104 — candidate
Henderson v. United States II.C C. The Court Of Appeals Did Not Hold That Section 922( sub-arg 1350 — candidate
Henderson v. United States II.D D. The District Court Was Not Required To Grant Petiti sub-arg 1228 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission A A. The Active-Supervision Requirement Ensures That The sub-arg ❝ 1276 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission B.1 1. State boards controlled by market participants are sub-arg 1353 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission B.2 2. Petitioner’s status under North Carolina law does n sub-arg 727 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission B.3 3. This Court’s decisions addressing agencies controll sub-arg 1330 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission B.4 4. This Court’s decision in Omni Outdoor does not supp sub-arg 525 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission C C. Requiring Petitioner To Demonstrate Active Supervis sub-arg ❝ 1474 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission D D. Faithful Application Of Midcal To State Boards Cont sub-arg 1221 — candidate
Johnson v. United States A.1 1. The ordinary case of unlawful possession of a short sub-arg ❝ 2975 — candidate
Johnson v. United States A.2 2. The possession of a short-barreled shotgun in the c sub-arg 2657 — candidate
Johnson v. United States B B. The ACCA’s Residual Clause Does Not Categorically E sub-arg 1466 — candidate
Johnson v. United States C C. The Unlawful Possession Of A Short-Barreled Shotgun sub-arg 1616 — candidate
Yates v. United States I.A.1 1. The plain meaning of “any * * * tangible object” co sub-arg 554 — candidate
Yates v. United States I.A.2 2. The structure and purpose of Chapter 73 and Section sub-arg 371 — candidate
Yates v. United States I.B.1 1. Section 1519 borrowed language from the Model Penal sub-arg 1052 — candidate
Yates v. United States I.B.2 2. Section 1519 is modeled on Section 1512 sub-arg ❝ 751 — candidate
Yates v. United States I.C C. The Legislative History Further Confirms That Secti sub-arg 1062 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.A.1 1. Dictionary definitions convey the ordinary, commons sub-arg 286 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.A.2 2. Noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis do not suppor sub-arg ❝ 770 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.A.3 3. The title and section headings do not limit Section sub-arg 267 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.A.4 4. The prohibition on “mak[ing] a false entry in” evid sub-arg 518 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.A.5 5. The Sentencing Commission’s definition of “tangible sub-arg 548 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.B B. Section 1519’s Origins In The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Do sub-arg 799 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.C.1 1. Prohibiting the destruction of physical evidence is sub-arg 523 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.C.2 2. The constitutional avoidance canon does not support sub-arg 455 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.C.3 3. Amici’s policy objections to Section 1519 are unfou sub-arg 142 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.C.4 4. The rule of lenity has no application here sub-arg 110 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States A A. The Text Of Section 2113(e) Unambiguously Covers Pe sub-arg 1384 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States B B. Statutory Context And Structure Reinforce The Natur sub-arg ❝ 2135 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States C C. Section 2113(e)’s Legislative History Is Consistent sub-arg ❝ 874 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States D D. Interpreting Section 2113(e) In Accordance With Its sub-arg 1043 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States E E. Petitioner And His Amici Have Not Identified A Viab sub-arg 1302 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States F F. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 150 — candidate
Elonis v. United States I.A A. Section 875(c) Prohibits A Narrow Class Of Communic sub-arg 538 — candidate
Elonis v. United States I.B.1 1. The text of Section 875(c) does not require proof o sub-arg 955 — candidate
Elonis v. United States I.B.2 2. Section 875(c)’s origins and purpose confirm that s sub-arg 580 — candidate
Elonis v. United States I.B.3 3. Section 875(c) defines a general-intent offense sub-arg 1926 — candidate
Elonis v. United States II.A A. The Rationales For Treating True Threats As Unprote sub-arg ❝ 1072 — candidate
Elonis v. United States II.B B. Both Precedent and History Demonstrate That True Th sub-arg 1946 — candidate
Elonis v. United States II.C.1 1. In analogous categories of unprotected speech, proo sub-arg 1210 — candidate
Elonis v. United States II.C.2 2. Speculation about chilling speech does not support sub-arg 965 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.A.1 1. Officers may conduct inquiries designed to resolve sub-arg 844 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.A.2 2. Officers may perform certain investigatory actions sub-arg 445 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.B.1 1. Caballes permits a dog sniff to extend a stop, so l sub-arg 1594 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.B.2 2. Courts considering dog sniffs and unrelated inquiri sub-arg 704 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.C.1 1. When during a traffic stop the officer issues a tic sub-arg ❝ 648 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.C.2 2. Petitioner’s proposed bright-line rule would have a sub-arg 552 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.D D. A Post-Ticket Dog Sniff Is Permissible If The Offic sub-arg 936 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.E E. Petitioner’s Arguments For A Bright-Line Prohibitio sub-arg 703 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.F F. The Dog Sniff Did Not Unreasonably Prolong The Traf sub-arg 578 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States II II. THE DOG SNIFF OF PETITIONER’S CAR WAS INDEPENDENTL sub-arg 462 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. I.A A. The Marketing Order Preserves Producers’ Ownership sub-arg 1112 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. I.B B. The Marketing Order Affects Producers Based On Thei sub-arg 1567 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. I.C C. Petitioners’ Arguments That The Marketing Order Eff sub-arg 2148 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. I.D D. There Is No Basis To Recognize A New Per Se Rule In sub-arg 513 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. II II. THE RESERVE REGULATIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE JUST CO sub-arg 1742 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. III III. IF PETITIONERS’ TAKINGS DEFENSE IS NOT REJECTED O sub-arg 308 — candidate
McFadden A.1 1. The government may establish a violation of the Ana sub-arg 1515 — candidate
McFadden A.2 2. The government need not prove that a defendant char sub-arg ❝ 1907 — candidate
McFadden B B. Petitioner’s Assertions Of Vagueness Do Not Support sub-arg ❝ 1331 — candidate
McFadden C C. The Court of Appeals Correctly Affirmed Petitioner’ sub-arg 2082 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency A A. Under Section 7412(n)(1)(A), EPA Has Substantial Di sub-arg 401 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency B.1 1. EPA’s interpretation of Section 7412(n)(1)(A) is co sub-arg ❝ 1671 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency B.2 2. EPA’s interpretation is consistent with the NESHAP sub-arg 713 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency B.3 3. Congress’s express references to costs in other CAA sub-arg 620 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency B.4 4. EPA’s approach to power-plant regulation under the sub-arg 476 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency C.1 1. The word “appropriate” does not unambiguously requi sub-arg ❝ 1490 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency C.2 2. Section 7412(n)(1)(B)’s express reference to costs sub-arg ❝ 221 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency C.3 3. Neither this Court’s precedents nor the D.C. Circui sub-arg ❝ 806 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency C.4 4. Whether or not Section 7412(n)(1)(A) is a “residual sub-arg ❝ 292 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency C.5 5. Petitioners’ objections to other aspects of the 201 sub-arg 110 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency D D. In The RIA That Accompanied The 2012 Final Rule, EP sub-arg ❝ 1014 — candidate
Green v. Brennan A A. Limitations Periods Generally Begin To Run Only Whe sub-arg 595 — candidate
Green v. Brennan B B. A Claim Alleging A Constructive Discharge Does Not sub-arg 845 — candidate
Green v. Brennan C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Countervailing Concerns Are O sub-arg 1858 — candidate
Green v. Brennan D D. Additional Policy Considerations Counsel Against Th sub-arg 506 — candidate
Green v. Brennan E E. In This Case The Limitations Period Was Triggered B sub-arg 1264 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. A A. Text, Precedent, And Considerations Of Purpose Esta sub-arg 1521 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. B.1 1. Neither precedent nor policy considerations support sub-arg 598 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. B.2 2. EEOC guidance does not support the decision below sub-arg 988 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. C C. The Decision Below Should Be Reversed sub-arg 544 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States I.A A. The Sufficiency Of The Evidence Is Measured Against sub-arg 1702 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States I.B B. The Government’s Inadvertent Failure To Object To J sub-arg 1316 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States I.C C. The Law-Of-The-Case Doctrine Does Not Apply, But In sub-arg 1545 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States II.A A. The Statute Of Limitations Is A Non-Jurisdictional sub-arg ❝ 1785 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States II.B.1 1. No “plain error” exists under Rule 52(b) when no st sub-arg 1450 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States II.B.2 2. Petitioner’s theory would deprive the government of sub-arg 683 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States II.B.3 3. Petitioner’s reliance on Wood and Day is misplaced sub-arg 408 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States II.B.4 4. Federal post-conviction proceedings provide an adeq sub-arg 297 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.A A. The Text Of The 1882 Act Demonstrates That Congress sub-arg 3325 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.B B. The Historical Context and Legislative History Of T sub-arg 2323 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.C.1 1. Congress sub-arg 553 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.C.2 2. The Department of the Interior sub-arg 713 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.C.3 3. The State of Nebraska sub-arg 198 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.C.4 4. The pattern of settlement sub-arg 490 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.C.5 5. Treatment of the area from 1961 to the present sub-arg 1669 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker II II. PRESENT-DAY EXPECTATIONS CANNOT JUSTIFY DIMINISHIN sub-arg ❝ 362 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States A A. Conspiracy To Violate The Hobbs Act Requires Only A sub-arg 1340 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Textual Argument Is Premised On A Mist sub-arg ❝ 2415 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States C.1 1. Obtaining property with another’s “consent” is not sub-arg 761 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States C.2 2. An “active participation” requirement is consistent sub-arg 1492 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States C.3 3. The government’s interpretation would not impose li sub-arg 782 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States C.4 4. “Principles of federalism and lenity” do not justif sub-arg 291 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States D D. Petitioner Also Conspired With Other BPD Officers, sub-arg ❝ 520 — candidate
Luis v. United States A A. Section 1345 Authorizes The Restraint Of “Property sub-arg 1892 — candidate
Luis v. United States B B. Restraining “Property Of Equivalent Value” Under Se sub-arg ❝ 4279 — candidate
Luis v. United States C C. The Hearing Held In This Case Did Not Violate Petit sub-arg ❝ 3058 — candidate
Taylor v. United States A.1 1. The statutory text reflects Congress’s intent to ex sub-arg 633 — candidate
Taylor v. United States A.2 2. The Commerce Clause power extends to intrastate act sub-arg 1132 — candidate
Taylor v. United States B B. Proof Of Petitioner’s Robbery Of A Suspected Mariju sub-arg 2410 — candidate
Taylor v. United States C C. The Evidence Is Sufficient To Establish That Petiti sub-arg 1226 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States I.A A. Under The Rule Of The Last Antecedent, The Term “In sub-arg 515 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States I.B B. The Statutory Context Of Section 2252(b)(2) Confirm sub-arg 743 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States I.C C. The Drafting History Of Section 2252(b)(2) Supports sub-arg 323 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States I.D D. Applying The Last-Antecedent Rule Promotes The Purp sub-arg 887 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.A.1 1. Applying the modifier “involving a minor or ward” t sub-arg 585 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.A.2 2. Section 2252(b)(2) does not contain an “integrated” sub-arg ❝ 785 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.B.1 1. The rule of the last antecedent produces a more rea sub-arg 707 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.B.2 2. The drafting history does not support petitioner’s sub-arg ❝ 1300 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.B.3 3. The legislative history does not overcome the lasta sub-arg 589 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.C C. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 290 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n I.A.1 1. The plain text of Section 824e(a) authorizes FERC’s sub-arg ❝ 1266 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n I.A.2 2. FERC’s interpretation of the FPA is the only sensib sub-arg ❝ 1547 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n I.B.1 1. No provision of the FPA circumscribes FERC’s author sub-arg ❝ 1161 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n I.B.2 2. The FPA does not bar FERC from regulating practices sub-arg ❝ 1015 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n I.C C. At Minimum, FERC’s Interpretation Of Its Statutory sub-arg 328 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n B B. FERC Sufficiently Responded To Commissioner Moeller sub-arg 652 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels A A. The Text Of Section 1915(b) Indicates That Both Ini sub-arg 2810 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels B B. The Statutory Context Confirms That Section 1915(b) sub-arg 2489 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels C C. The Per-Case Approach To Section 1915(b) Best Furth sub-arg 1905 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels D D. Considerations Of Administrative Convenience Do Not sub-arg 707 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels E E. The Canon Of Constitutional Avoidance Has No Role T sub-arg 1107 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A.1 1. Section 8127(d) imposes a mandate sub-arg 361 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A.2 2. Section 8127(d)’s text and context show that it doe sub-arg 1320 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A.3 3. Section 8127’s structure confirms that the VA does sub-arg 602 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A.4 4. The FAR’s prior treatment of similarly mandatory co sub-arg 1092 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A.5 5. Requiring the VA to apply Section 8127 before placi sub-arg 1266 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A.6 6. The VA’s procurement regime, including the agency’s sub-arg ❝ 362 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A.7 7. The pro-veteran canon of statutory construction is sub-arg 381 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States B B. The VA’s Interpretation Of Section 8127 Warrants Ju sub-arg 763 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Suggestion That The VA May Not Have Ac sub-arg 599 — candidate
Voisine v. United States A.1 1. Section 922(g)(9) was intended to cover statutes th sub-arg 306 — candidate
Voisine v. United States A.2 2. Common-law battery encompasses the reckless causati sub-arg 2406 — candidate
Voisine v. United States B.1 1. Common-law battery necessarily entailed the “use * sub-arg 872 — candidate
Voisine v. United States B.2 2. The term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” b sub-arg 1142 — candidate
Voisine v. United States C.1 1. Petitioners’ interpretation would prevent Section 9 sub-arg 726 — candidate
Voisine v. United States C.2 2. Exclusion of reckless conduct would allow thousands sub-arg ❝ 287 — candidate
Voisine v. United States C.3 3. Resort to the modified categorical approach is of l sub-arg 544 — candidate
Voisine v. United States D D. Section 922(g)(9) Is Not Limited To Only “Severe” I sub-arg 507 — candidate
Voisine v. United States E.1 1. No ambiguity in Section 922(g)(9) implicates the ru sub-arg 128 — candidate
Voisine v. United States E.2 2. Including reckless assaults and batteries does not sub-arg 710 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.A.1 1. The plain meaning of “judgment” at the time Congres sub-arg ❝ 593 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.A.2 2. Rule 54(a) and neighboring provisions of the FTCA c sub-arg 376 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.B B. The Purpose Of The Judgment Bar Confirms That A Sec sub-arg 888 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.C.1 1. The ordinary meaning of the term “judgment” governs sub-arg 552 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.C.2 2. A judgment of dismissal under Section 2680 has prec sub-arg 2029 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.D D. Respondent’s Bivens Claim Would Be Dismissed Even U sub-arg 599 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich II.A A. Respondent’s FTCA Action Was “An Action Under Secti sub-arg 1526 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich II.B B. Section 2680 Does Not Exempt Categories Of FTCA Cas sub-arg 768 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.A A. Congressional Enactments Governing Immigration And sub-arg 1209 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.B.1 1. Congress has always used physical-presence or resid sub-arg 1367 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.B.2 2. A foreign-born child with two legally recognized pa sub-arg ❝ 2427 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.U.2 2. Congress enacted the challenged provisions to reduc sub-arg 815 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.U.3 3. The court of appeals erred in speculating that Sect sub-arg 575 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.D D. Congress Chose Appropriate Means To Achieve Its Imp sub-arg 1708 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL A sub-arg ❝ 1326 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez I.A A. Aliens Detained Under Section 1225(b) Can Only Be R sub-arg 591 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez I.B B. The Statutory Background, Context, And Purpose Conf sub-arg 1480 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez I.C C. The Canon Of Constitutional Avoidance Does Not Just sub-arg ❝ 1264 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez II.A A. Section 1226(c) Unambiguously Prohibits Release Of sub-arg 340 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez II.B B. Releasing Criminal Aliens On Bond Would Cause The V sub-arg 558 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez II.C C. Construing Section 1226(c) To Have A Six-Month Limi sub-arg 3179 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez II.D D. Any Relief From Detention Must Be Sought In An Indi sub-arg 797 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez III.A A. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Shifting And Heighten sub-arg 898 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez III.B B. New Bond Hearings Are Not Required Automatically Ev sub-arg 327 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez III.C C. Bond Hearings Need Not Consider Factors Beyond Bail sub-arg 223 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. A A. The Manner In Which The FVRA Has Been Understood Si sub-arg 2930 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. B B. While The Settled Construction Of The FVRA Accords sub-arg 1906 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. B B. The Settled Construction of the FVRA Best Accords W sub-arg 967 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. D D. The Manner In Which The FVRA Has Been Understood Si sub-arg ❝ 1282 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. A A. Jurisdictional Determinations Assist Landowners To sub-arg 1120 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. B.1 1. The CWA itself, not the jurisdictional determinatio sub-arg 1866 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. B.2 2. Although an affirmative jurisdictional determinatio sub-arg 1712 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. B.3 3. Sackett does not suggest that a Corps jurisdictiona sub-arg 753 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. C C. There Are Adequate Alternative Opportunities For Re sub-arg 1373 — candidate
United States v. Bryant A.1 1. This Court’s decisions establish that an uncounsele sub-arg 1992 — candidate
United States v. Bryant A.2 2. Because respondent’s prior tribal-court convictions sub-arg 449 — candidate
United States v. Bryant A.3 3. The Ninth Circuit’s rationales for finding a Sixth sub-arg 1298 — candidate
United States v. Bryant A.4 4. Concerns about the reliability of uncounseled triba sub-arg 1089 — candidate
United States v. Bryant B.1 1. Congress’s decision to permit uncounseled tribal-co sub-arg 533 — candidate
United States v. Bryant B.2 2. Congress could rationally conclude that permitting sub-arg ❝ 1133 — candidate
United States v. Bryant B.3 3. Congress could rationally conclude that uncounseled sub-arg 1297 — candidate
United States v. Bryant B.4 4. The facts of this case demonstrate that uncounseled sub-arg 772 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.A.1 1. The PTO has long applied the broadest-reasonablecon sub-arg 1474 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.A.2 2. By authorizing the patentee to amend its claims dur sub-arg 823 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.A.3 3. Like other established interpretive rules, the broa sub-arg 302 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.A.4 4. Several other structural attributes demonstrate tha sub-arg 1198 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.B.1 1. The broadest-reasonable-construction standard is no sub-arg 1485 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.B.2 2. The PTO’s regulation is reasonable and consistent w sub-arg 386 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee II.A.1 1. The statutory text limits judicial review to the ag sub-arg 1492 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee II.A.2 2. Limiting review to the PTO’s final decision about p sub-arg 177 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee II.B B. Even If The Agency’s Decision Were Reviewable, The sub-arg 215 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A.1 1. The Hobbs Act and the honest-services statute prohi sub-arg ❝ 381 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A.2 2. This case is governed by Section 201’s definition o sub-arg 117 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States B B. Section 201 Broadly Defines “Official Act” To Encom sub-arg ❝ 1491 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States C.1 1. Section 201’s text and history refute petitioner’s sub-arg 719 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States C.2 2. Dicta in this Court’s decision in Sun-Diamond provi sub-arg 849 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States C.3 3. This Court’s broad interpretation of “official act” sub-arg 1022 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States C.4 4. Petitioner’s remaining arguments lack merit sub-arg 684 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States D.1 1. Sufficient evidence established that petitioner agr sub-arg 1253 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States D.2 2. Sufficient evidence established that petitioner agr sub-arg 284 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States D.3 3. Sufficient evidence established that petitioner agr sub-arg 518 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States E E. Petitioner’s Challenges To The Jury Instructions La sub-arg 1472 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States F F. Petitioner’s Vagueness Challenges Lack Merit sub-arg 251 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States A A. The Inconsistent Verdicts In Petitioners’ First Tri sub-arg 1951 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States B.1 1. Petitioners’ reliance on Yeager is misplaced sub-arg 2700 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States B.2 2. Principles of finality and respect for the jury’s v sub-arg 1474 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States B.3 3. Vacated convictions are a relevant part of the tria sub-arg 1921 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States C C. Petitioners’ Policy Arguments Do Not Justify Ignori sub-arg 830 — candidate
Shaw v. United States A A. The Bank-Fraud Statute Comprehensively Protects Ban sub-arg 854 — candidate
Shaw v. United States B.1 1. Section 1344(1)’s prohibition against a “scheme to sub-arg 1541 — candidate
Shaw v. United States B.2 2. Section 1344’s structure does not limit Section 134 sub-arg 468 — candidate
Shaw v. United States B.3 3. Section 1344’s legislative history does not support sub-arg 714 — candidate
Shaw v. United States B.4 4. No sound reason exists for basing criminal liabilit sub-arg 551 — candidate
Shaw v. United States B.5 5. Petitioner’s bank-owned property theory is a partic sub-arg 1057 — candidate
Shaw v. United States C.1 1. Section 1344(1)’s text and drafting history are inc sub-arg 1070 — candidate
Shaw v. United States C.2 2. An intent-to-harm-the-bank requirement is unsound sub-arg 688 — candidate
Shaw v. United States D D. Petitioner’s Remaining Challenges To The Jury Instr sub-arg 634 — candidate
Salman v. United States A.1 1. The Dirks framework governs tipping cases sub-arg 992 — candidate
Salman v. United States A.2 2. Dirks’s personal-benefit test is satisfied by discl sub-arg 1429 — candidate
Salman v. United States A.3 3. Dirks makes clear that the tipper’s understanding t sub-arg 284 — candidate
Salman v. United States A.4 4. A tipper personally benefits by giving a gift of in sub-arg 1237 — candidate
Salman v. United States B B. Stare Decisis And Subsequent Legislation Strongly S sub-arg 982 — candidate
Salman v. United States C C. The Legal Standards That Petitioner Proposes Are Er sub-arg 1225 — candidate
Salman v. United States D.1 1. The Dirks standard is not vague sub-arg 1823 — candidate
Salman v. United States D.2 2. The Dirks standard is not unduly broad sub-arg 685 — candidate
Salman v. United States E E. The Proposal To Narrow Dirks To Exclude Gifts Would sub-arg ❝ 1470 — candidate
Salman v. United States F F. Petitioner’s Convictions Should Be Affirmed sub-arg 137 — candidate
Welch v. United States I.A A. New Substantive Rules Apply Retroactively To Cases sub-arg ❝ 1533 — candidate
Welch v. United States I.B B. Johnson Announced A “New” Constitutional Rule sub-arg 307 — candidate
Welch v. United States I.C C. Johnson Announced A “Substantive” Rule For ACCAEnha sub-arg 1307 — candidate
Welch v. United States I.D D. Johnson Is A Substantive Rule Notwithstanding That sub-arg 1971 — candidate
Welch v. United States I.E E. This Court Should Hold That Johnson Is A Substantiv sub-arg 1011 — candidate
Welch v. United States II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD DECIDE IN THE FIRST IN sub-arg 1020 — candidate
United States v. Texas I.A.1 1. Respondents lack Article III standing to challenge sub-arg 1112 — candidate
United States v. Texas I.A.2 2. A State cannot challenge the Guidance on the basis sub-arg 1122 — candidate
United States v. Texas I.A.3 3. Massachusetts v. EPA does not support respondents sub-arg ❝ 489 — candidate
United States v. Texas I.A.4 4. The court of appeals’ radical expansion of state st sub-arg 713 — candidate
United States v. Texas I.B B. Protecting A State From The Costs Of A Voluntary St sub-arg 566 — candidate
United States v. Texas I.C C. The Guidance Is Not Justiciable Under the APA Becau sub-arg 1441 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.A A. The Guidance Is A Lawful And Responsible Exercise O sub-arg ❝ 1059 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.B.1 1. Past policies for exercising enforcement discretion sub-arg 445 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.B.2 2. Work authorization as a component of the exercise o sub-arg 648 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.B.3 3. IRCA sub-arg 461 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.B.4 4. The Family Fairness policy and the IMMACT sub-arg ❝ 655 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.B.5 5. Deferred-action statutes sub-arg 337 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.B.6 6. The DREAM Act, DACA, and DAPA sub-arg 374 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.C C. Respondents’ Counterarguments Lack Merit sub-arg 1042 — candidate
United States v. Texas III.A A. The Guidance Is A General Statement Of Policy Conce sub-arg ❝ 850 — candidate
United States v. Texas III.B B. The Guidance Is Not Impermissibly “Binding” sub-arg 1105 — candidate
United States v. Texas IV IV. FOR RELIEF sub-arg 756 — candidate
Manrique v. United States A A. To Appeal A Criminal Sentence, The Defendant Must F sub-arg 2125 — candidate
Manrique v. United States B B. Federal Rule Of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(2) Does No sub-arg ❝ 2799 — candidate
Manrique v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Failure To File A Notice Of Appeal Can sub-arg 2048 — candidate
Beckles v. United States I.A A. Whether Petitioner’s Rule Applies Retroactively Dep sub-arg 1193 — candidate
Beckles v. United States I.B B. Petitioner’s Asserted Rule Would Have A Procedural sub-arg 3356 — candidate
Beckles v. United States I.C C. Declining To Give Petitioner’s Rule Retroactive Eff sub-arg 903 — candidate
Beckles v. United States II.A A. The Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Are Subject To T sub-arg 3000 — candidate
Beckles v. United States II.B B. Petitioner Was Not Denied Due Process Because His A sub-arg 1946 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa I.A A. This Court Has Consistently Declined To Extend Bive sub-arg 917 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa I.B.1 1. Claims by aliens injured abroad implicate foreign a sub-arg ❝ 979 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa I.B.2 2. Congress’s consistent decisions not to provide a ju sub-arg 982 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa I.B.3 3. The presumption against extraterritoriality reinfor sub-arg 639 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa I.C C. Petitioners Identify No Sound Reason To Extend Bive sub-arg 839 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa II.A A. Verdugo-Urquidez Held That The Fourth Amendment Gen sub-arg 963 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa II.B B. Neither Justice Kennedy’s Concurring Opinion Nor Th sub-arg 1100 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa II.C C. This Court Should Reject Petitioners’ Ad Hoc Approa sub-arg ❝ 1517 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa III.A A. Petitioners’ Claim Is Barred By Qualified Immunity sub-arg 451 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa III.B B. It Would Not Have Been Clear To Every Reasonable Of sub-arg 1401 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission I.A A. Longstanding Practice, Reinforced By Statutory Text sub-arg 1684 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission I.B B. The Sound Administration Of Justice Favors AbuseOf- sub-arg 1838 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.A A. The District Court Abused Its Discretion When It De sub-arg 757 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.B B. Under An Abuse-Of-Discretion Standard, No Remand To sub-arg 1448 — candidate
Lee v. Tam U U.S.C. 1052(a), IS FACIALLY CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE F sub-arg 173 — candidate
Lee v. Tam A A. There Is A Fundamental Constitutional Distinction B sub-arg 1417 — candidate
Lee v. Tam B.1 1. Section 1052(a) establishes criteria for government sub-arg 1097 — candidate
Lee v. Tam B.2 2. Section 1052(a)’s disparagement provision does not sub-arg 825 — candidate
Lee v. Tam B.3 3. Ineligibility for a government benefit is not itsel sub-arg 683 — candidate
Lee v. Tam B.4 4. Section 1052(a)’s disparagement provision does not sub-arg 738 — candidate
Lee v. Tam B.5 5. Section 1052(a)’s encouragement to use nondisparagi sub-arg 331 — candidate
Lee v. Tam C.1 1. The federal trademark-registration program, includi sub-arg 470 — candidate
Lee v. Tam C.2 2. Section 1052(a)’s disparagement provision furthers sub-arg 974 — candidate
Lee v. Tam C.3 3. The court of appeals erred in failing to recognize sub-arg 660 — candidate
Lee v. Tam C.4 4. Section 1052(a)’s disparagement provision is not a sub-arg 1109 — candidate
Lee v. Tam C.5 5. Limiting federal trademark registration to marks th sub-arg 517 — candidate
Lee v. Tam C.6 6. The court of appeals’ concern about inconsistent en sub-arg 483 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi I.A A. This Case Does Not Arise In A Familiar Bivens Conte sub-arg 1037 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi I.B B. The Bivens Remedy Should Not Be Extended To The Nov sub-arg 1812 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi II II. Petitioners Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Bec sub-arg 2402 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi III III. Respondents Have Not Plausibly Alleged That Petit sub-arg 2140 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya A.1 1. This Court has long drawn a firm distinction betwee sub-arg 1677 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya A.2 2. Subjecting civil immigration statutes to a lesser s sub-arg 1162 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya A.3 3. Under the vagueness standard appropriate for provis sub-arg 891 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya B.1 1. Section 16(b) is drafted more precisely than the AC sub-arg 2930 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya B.2 2. A statute is not unconstitutionally vague merely be sub-arg ❝ 1246 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya B.3 3. Section 16(b) has not produced any interpretive con sub-arg 1714 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya C C. Invalidating Section 16(b) Would Have Deleterious C sub-arg 559 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States A.1 1. Petitioners’ presentation of James McMillan as an a sub-arg 2731 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States A.2 2. Ammie Davis’s statement was inadmissible and would sub-arg 649 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States B B. No Reasonable Probability Exists That Disclosure Of sub-arg 2230 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States C C. The Undisclosed Evidence Considered Cumulatively Do sub-arg 1960 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States D D. Nothing Justifies A Different Conclusion For Overto sub-arg 987 — candidate
Dean v. United States A A. Section 924(c)’s Text And Function Mean That A Cour sub-arg 1850 — candidate
Dean v. United States B.1 1. Each count of conviction carries its own sentence t sub-arg 396 — candidate
Dean v. United States B.2 2. The total length of imprisonment resulting from mul sub-arg 619 — candidate
Dean v. United States B.3 3. Section 924(c) withdraws a judge’s discretionary au sub-arg 762 — candidate
Dean v. United States C C. Section 924(c)’s Drafting History Reflects Congress sub-arg 1896 — candidate
Dean v. United States D D. Petitioner’s Understanding Of Section 924(c)’s Sent sub-arg 794 — candidate
Dean v. United States E E. The Sentencing Guidelines Reflect A Permissible Met sub-arg 771 — candidate
Dean v. United States F F. Section 924(c) Does Not Restrict The Information Av sub-arg 366 — candidate
Dean v. United States G G. The Aggravated Identity Theft Provisions in Section sub-arg 767 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States A A. Because A Conspiracy Is A Partnership In Crime, Con sub-arg 1317 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States B.1 1. Traditional principles of conspiracy liability gove sub-arg 885 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States B.2 2. Section 853(a)(1)’s text readily encompasses tradit sub-arg 534 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States B.3 3. Petitioner identifies no sound reason to disregard sub-arg 1197 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States C.1 1. Section 853 is not limited to the forfeiture of spe sub-arg 833 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States C.2 2. Holding conspirators jointly and severally liable o sub-arg 454 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States C.3 3. Traditional principles of conspiracy liability do n sub-arg 243 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States C.4 4. The application of traditional principles of conspi sub-arg 717 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States D D. Neither The Rule Of Lenity Nor The Canon Of Constit sub-arg 883 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii I.A A. The Denial Of Entry To An Alien Abroad Is Reviewabl sub-arg 1105 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii I.B.1 1. Doe #1’s and Dr. Elshikh’s delay-in-entry injuries sub-arg 476 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii I.B.2 2. Doe #1’s and Dr. Elshikh’s “message” injuries are n sub-arg 687 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii I.B.3 3. Hawaii does not assert any violation of its own con sub-arg 482 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii II II. RESPONDENTS’ CHALLENGES TO SECTION 2(C) DID NOT BE sub-arg 777 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.A.1 1. Sections 1182(f ) and 1185(a)(1) grant the Presiden sub-arg 1290 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.A.2 2. The Order is a valid exercise of the President’s br sub-arg 693 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.A.3 3. The Ninth Circuit’s reasons for deeming the Order’s sub-arg 939 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.B.1 1. There is no conflict between Section 1152(a) and th sub-arg 1064 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.B.2 2. In the event of a conflict, the President’s exercis sub-arg 339 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.B.3 3. Even if Section 1152(a) prevails, it cannot justify sub-arg 261 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.C C. Section 2(c) Is Consistent With 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) sub-arg 529 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.D D. Section 6(b) Is Consistent With 8 U.S.C. 1157 sub-arg 559 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii IV.A A. The Order Is Constitutional Under Mandel And Din sub-arg 1876 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii IV.B B. The Order Is Constitutional Under Domestic Establis sub-arg 2129 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii V V. THE GLOBAL INJUNCTIONS ARE OVERBROAD sub-arg 1415 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense A.1 1. The Clean Water Rule is reviewable under Section 13 sub-arg 3319 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense A.2 2. The Clean Water Rule is also reviewable under Secti sub-arg 1238 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense B B. Petitioner’s Reading Of Section 1369(b)(1) Cannot B sub-arg 1128 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense C C. The CWA’s Legislative History Supports The Court Of sub-arg 1930 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense D D. When Congress Has Authorized Direct Court Of Appeal sub-arg 476 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States I.A A. The Text Of Section 1425(a) Contains No Independent sub-arg 1174 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States I.B B. The Term “Procures * * * Contrary To Law” Does Not sub-arg 1303 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States I.C C. The Legislative History Of Section 1425(a) Confirms sub-arg 1391 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States I.D D. Congress’s Decision To Include A Materiality Requir sub-arg 1486 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States I.E E. The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine And Rule Of L sub-arg 767 — candidate
Lee v. United States I.A A. This Court Has Consistently Conditioned Strickland sub-arg 1668 — candidate
Lee v. United States I.B B. Granting Strickland Relief To A Defendant Who Lacke sub-arg 1009 — candidate
Lee v. United States II.A A. A Padilla Claimant’s Subjective Preference For Tria sub-arg 1431 — candidate
Lee v. United States II.B B. A Defendant Cannot Establish Strickland Prejudice B sub-arg 1156 — candidate
Lee v. United States III.A A. Petitioner Has Not Shown A Reasonable Probability T sub-arg 1176 — candidate
Lee v. United States III.B B. Petitioner’s Speculation About Alternative Plea Off sub-arg 1088 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board I.A A. The Mixed-Case Exception To Exclusive Federal Circu sub-arg 1932 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board I.B B. Exclusive Federal Circuit Review Of MSPB Nonappeala sub-arg 1304 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board II.A A. Judicial Review Of The MSPB’s Nonappealability Dete sub-arg 762 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board II.B B. This Court’s Decision In Kloeckner Does Not Support sub-arg ❝ 1608 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board II.C C. Petitioner Is Not Entitled To Disregard The MSPB’s sub-arg 1324 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States I.A.1 1. Petitioner cannot claim a legitimate privacy intere sub-arg ❝ 2162 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States I.A.2 2. Petitioner cannot distinguish this Court’s cases fi sub-arg 349 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States I.A.2 Figure 1 – Excerpt from Gov’t Ex. 57 (Pet. App. 86a) sub-arg 51 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States I.A.3 3. Cell-service providers’ use of technology supplies sub-arg 2211 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States I.B B. The Government Did Not Obtain The Cell-Site Records sub-arg 452 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States II.A A. Law Enforcement Agents Need Not Obtain A Warrant To sub-arg 1546 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States II.B B. A Traditional Balancing Of Interests Further Suppor sub-arg 1332 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States III III. PETITIONER CORRECTLY CONCEDES THAT THE GOVERNMENT sub-arg 556 — candidate
Class v. United States A A. A Challenge To The Constitutionality Of A Substanti sub-arg 1817 — candidate
Class v. United States B.1 1. Rule 11(a)(2) precludes appeal of pretrial issues t sub-arg 662 — candidate
Class v. United States B.2 2. Rule 11(a)(2)’s preservation requirement applies to sub-arg 1133 — candidate
Class v. United States B.3 3. Requiring express preservation of constitutional ch sub-arg 984 — candidate
Class v. United States C.1 1. A constitutional challenge to the statute of convic sub-arg 1537 — candidate
Class v. United States C.2 2. No exception to the preclusive effect of a guilty p sub-arg 1408 — candidate
Class v. United States C.3 3. Petitioner’s reliance on Blackledge and Menna is mi sub-arg 1345 — candidate
Class v. United States D D. Petitioner Knowingly Waived His Appellate Rights Du sub-arg 869 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke A.1 1. Congress can withdraw jurisdiction over pending sui sub-arg 624 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke A.2 2. Section 2(b) withdraws jurisdiction over pending su sub-arg 1553 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke B B. Section 2(b) Withdraws The United States’ General W sub-arg 1132 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke C.1 1. Article III permits Congress to change the law appl sub-arg 1476 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke C.2 2. Section 2(b) changes the law applicable to petition sub-arg 472 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke C.3 3. Section 2(b) does not direct a particular outcome u sub-arg 1511 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke C.4 4. This Court’s prior statement in Patchak I that peti sub-arg 390 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission A.1 1. As Used In Section 2462, A “Penalty” Is A Punishmen sub-arg 455 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission A.2 2. Disgorgement In SEC Actions Is Not A “Penalty” sub-arg 2197 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission A.3 3. Petitioner’s Arguments That Disgorgement Is A “Pena sub-arg ❝ 1842 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission B B. Disgorgement Is Not A “Forfeiture” Under Section sub-arg 2259 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission C C. Extending Section 2462 To Cover Disgorgement Is Inc sub-arg ❝ 1910 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch A.1 1. The plain language of Section 1101(a)(43)(A) applie sub-arg 1592 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch A.2 2. Petitioner’s alternative approach to interpreting S sub-arg ❝ 3598 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch A.3 3. The Board’s reasonable interpretation of “sexual ab sub-arg 5041 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch B B. Step Two: Petitioner’s State Conviction Categorical sub-arg 135 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal I.A A. The AIA Forecloses Judicial Review Of Petitioner’s sub-arg 1553 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal I.B.1 1. The USPTO’s conclusion that it may institute inter sub-arg 4496 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal I.B.2 2. The USPTO’s regulation construing the AIA to permit sub-arg 1208 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal II II. THE BOARD PROPERLY ISSUES FINAL WRITTEN DECISIONS sub-arg 905 — candidate
Marinello v. United States I.A A. The “Due Administration” Of Title 26 Includes The I sub-arg 805 — candidate
Marinello v. United States I.B B. An “Endeavor” Requires A Factual Nexus Between The sub-arg 447 — candidate
Marinello v. United States I.C C. Section 7212(a)’s Mens Rea Requirements Limit The S sub-arg 820 — candidate
Marinello v. United States I.D D. The Purpose Of Section 7212(a)’s Omnibus Clause Sup sub-arg 1030 — candidate
Marinello v. United States II.A A. The Phrase “Due Administration Of This Title” In Se sub-arg 1204 — candidate
Marinello v. United States II.B B. Petitioner’s Other Statutory Construction Arguments sub-arg 1206 — candidate
Marinello v. United States II.C C. The Legislative History Of Section 7212(a) Provides sub-arg 515 — candidate
Marinello v. United States II.D D. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 153 — candidate
Marinello v. United States A A. Section 7212(a) Does Not Impermissibly Overlap With sub-arg 1913 — candidate
Marinello v. United States B B. Section 7212(a) Does Not Impermissibly “Chill” Lawf sub-arg 400 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap I.A A. Section 1226(c)’s Text And Structure Show That Crim sub-arg 2316 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap I.B B. The BIA’s Interpretation Advances Congress’s Purpos sub-arg 964 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap I.C C. The BIA’s Interpretation Avoids Serious Practical P sub-arg 612 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap I.D D. This Court’s Decisions Further Confirm That The BIA sub-arg 810 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap I.E E. Section 1226(c)’s History Shows That Congress Inten sub-arg 1228 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap I.F F. The Court Of Appeals’ Counterarguments Lack Merit sub-arg 909 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap II II. The BIA’s Correct Interpretation Of The Statutory sub-arg 676 — candidate
Byrd v. United States A A. Petitioner’s Illegitimate Presence In Avis’s Car Ca sub-arg 2738 — candidate
Byrd v. United States B.1 1. Petitioner had no enforceable property rights in a sub-arg 2388 — candidate
Byrd v. United States B.2 2. No societal understanding provided petitioner with sub-arg 1649 — candidate
Byrd v. United States C C. Petitioner’s “Possession And Control” Test Is Unsou sub-arg 1692 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. A A. A Plaintiff May Carry Its Initial Burden In A Rule- sub-arg 758 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. B.1 1. The anti-steering rules stif le price competition sub-arg 1563 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. B.2 2. The anti-steering rules raise merchant fees and inf sub-arg 521 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. B.3 3. The anti-steering rules block low-fee rivals and su sub-arg 755 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. C.1 1. Services to merchants and services to cardholders d sub-arg 1185 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. C.2 2. The facts found by the district court established a sub-arg 659 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. D.1 1. The United States and the States were not required sub-arg 750 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. D.2 2. The United States and the States were not required sub-arg 712 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. E E. The District Court Properly Considered And Rejected sub-arg 1363 — candidate
Lagos v. United States A A. GE Capital’s Investigatory And Legal Expenses Entit sub-arg 1895 — candidate
Lagos v. United States B.1 1. GE Capital incurred recoverable expenses when it pa sub-arg 2952 — candidate
Lagos v. United States B.2 2. GE Capital incurred recoverable expenses when it at sub-arg 1180 — candidate
Lagos v. United States B.3 3. The MVRA does not categorically deny restitution fo sub-arg 1126 — candidate
Lagos v. United States B.4 4. The rule of lenity does not support petitioner’s re sub-arg 320 — candidate
Lagos v. United States C C. The District Court’s Restitution Order Is Independe sub-arg 782 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC I.A.1 1. Congress has permissibly authorized USPTO patent ex sub-arg 601 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC I.A.2 2. Inter partes review resolves a matter of public rig sub-arg 2825 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC I.A.3 3. The AIA provisions that govern inter partes review sub-arg ❝ 571 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC I.A.4 4. Inter partes review satisfies even the standards th sub-arg 1190 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC I.B B. The Longstanding Treatment of Patents As Revocable sub-arg 3927 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC II II. INTER PARTES REVIEW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SEVENTH sub-arg 691 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States A A. Rule 52(b) Grants Courts Limited Authority To Corre sub-arg 1386 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States B.1 1. A forfeited Guidelines error warrants reversal only sub-arg 1023 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States B.2 2. A presumption that Guidelines errors warrant revers sub-arg 1504 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States B.3 3. Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are unsound sub-arg 1588 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States C.1 1. The fourth plain-error prong is not limited to erro sub-arg 635 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States C.2 2. The court of appeals properly declined to correct t sub-arg 999 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States I.A.1 1. A CMCR judgeship is not a “civil office” within the sub-arg 2136 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States I.A.2 2. Military officers are “authorized by law” to serve sub-arg ❝ 957 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States I.B B. Even If Section 973(b) Prohibited Military Officers sub-arg ❝ 1449 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States II II. SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE ON A CCA AND THE CMCR DOES NO sub-arg 754 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States III.A A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction In Dalmazzi And Cox B sub-arg 1000 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States III.B B. This Court Has Jurisdiction In Ortiz Because 28 U.S sub-arg 1675 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States IV IV. EVEN IF THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN DALMAZZI AN sub-arg 420 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n I.A A. The Appointments Clause Prescribes The Manner For S sub-arg 1189 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n I.B.1 1. An ALJ who adjudicates a dispute on behalf of the C sub-arg 978 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n I.B.2 2. In presiding over proceedings of the Commission, an sub-arg 2049 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n I.C C. The Reasons Given Below For Treating The Commission sub-arg 1539 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n I.D D. The Appointment Of The ALJ In This Case Did Not Com sub-arg 113 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n II.A A. The President’s Constitutional Responsibility To Fa sub-arg 1428 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n II.B B. To Avoid Serious Constitutional Concerns, This Cour sub-arg 2668 — candidate
Hughes v. United States I.A A. Marks Gives Divided Decisions Of This Court Binding sub-arg 773 — candidate
Hughes v. United States I.B.1 1. Petitioner’s “common reasoning” approach is mistake sub-arg 2620 — candidate
Hughes v. United States I.B.2 2. This Court should not replace Marks with a rule und sub-arg 337 — candidate
Hughes v. United States I.B.3 3. Freeman does not lack precedential effect on the th sub-arg 1134 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.A A. Section 3582(c)(2) Represents A Narrow Exception To sub-arg 264 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.B.1 1. A defendant’s sentence is “based on” a calculation sub-arg 865 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.B.2 2. The foundation of the sentence of a defendant who p sub-arg 1530 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.C C. The Sentencing Commission’s Limitations Confirm Tha sub-arg 253 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.D.1 1. Plea agreements are essential to the administration sub-arg 372 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.D.2 2. The government’s construction of Section 3582(c)(2) sub-arg 1029 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. U U.S. SERVICE PROVIDER TO DISCLOSE ANY ELECTRONIC COMMU sub-arg 423 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. A.1 1. This Court’s decisions require a provision-specific sub-arg 880 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. A.2 2. Section 2703 focuses on the disclosure of electroni sub-arg 1177 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. A.3 3. Even if Section 2703 focuses on privacy, any invasi sub-arg 1612 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. B B. Congress Enacted Section 2703 Against The Backgroun sub-arg 2538 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. C C. Microsoft’s Contrary Theory Would Be Both Impractic sub-arg 1172 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. D D. Enforcement Of Section 2703 Respects The United Sta sub-arg 1711 — candidate
Washington v. United States A.1 1. The treaty signatories intended to protect tribal f sub-arg 1291 — candidate
Washington v. United States A.2 2. Contemporaneous sources of law protected fisheries sub-arg 817 — candidate
Washington v. United States A.3 3. Precedents of this Court confirm that the “right of sub-arg 1870 — candidate
Washington v. United States A.4 4. The State mischaracterizes the decisions below as g sub-arg 887 — candidate
Washington v. United States A.5 5. The State’s other arguments concerning interpretati sub-arg 864 — candidate
Washington v. United States B.1 1. The State’s equitable defenses do not apply to the sub-arg 625 — candidate
Washington v. United States B.2 2. This Court’s decision in City of Sherrill does not sub-arg 539 — candidate
Washington v. United States B.3 3. Even if equitable defenses were available in this c sub-arg 600 — candidate
Washington v. United States C.1 1. The record shows that replacing the State’s barrier sub-arg 685 — candidate
Washington v. United States C.2 2. The record contains ample evidence that barrier cul sub-arg 306 — candidate
Washington v. United States C.3 3. Nothing in the record supports the State’s untimely sub-arg 385 — candidate
Washington v. United States C.4 4. The district court correctly found that the balance sub-arg 178 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez A.1 1. The district court’s orders were not “final decisio sub-arg 2660 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez A.2 2. The Ninth Circuit did not have authority to issue a sub-arg 983 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez B.1 1. Respondents lost their personal interest in the out sub-arg 278 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez B.2 2. Respondents’ claims cannot be saved from mootness b sub-arg 2146 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez B.3 3. The exception to mootness for cases “capable of rep sub-arg 1065 — candidate
Dahda v. United States A A. The Title III Orders In This Case Were Overbroad, N sub-arg 852 — candidate
Dahda v. United States B.1 1. Title III requires suppression for facial errors on sub-arg 1345 — candidate
Dahda v. United States B.2 2. The legal mistake in the orders here did not preven sub-arg 1754 — candidate
Dahda v. United States C C. Any Insufficiency Arising From The Overbreadth Of T sub-arg 2508 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions A.1 1. The statutory text, context, and structure support sub-arg 4372 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions A.2 2. The stop-time rule’s history and purpose support th sub-arg 2605 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions B.1 1. The Board’s interpretation of the stop-time rule is sub-arg 534 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions B.2 2. Petitioner’s contrary arguments lack merit sub-arg 824 — candidate
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. United States A.1 1. The phrase “any form of money remuneration” encompa sub-arg 2519 — candidate
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. United States A.2 2. The exclusions contained in the RRTA’s definition o sub-arg 2331 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States A A. The Limited Procedures For Section 3582(c)(2) Sente sub-arg ❝ 2519 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States B.1 1. The incorporation of Section 3553(a) considerations sub-arg 1458 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States B.2 2. Appellate courts do not need additional explanation sub-arg 1754 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States C C. The Court Of Appeals Correctly Affirmed The Distric sub-arg 1437 — candidate
Koons v. United States A A. The “Sentencing Ranges” For Petitioners’ Offenses W sub-arg ❝ 2309 — candidate
Koons v. United States B.1 1. A departure under Section 3553(e) is anchored to th sub-arg 855 — candidate
Koons v. United States B.2 2. The proper extent of a Section 3553(e) departure de sub-arg 2285 — candidate
Koons v. United States B.3 3. The sentencing proceedings in petitioners’ cases il sub-arg 810 — candidate
Koons v. United States B.4 4. A below-statutory-minimum guidelines calculation is sub-arg 1408 — candidate
Koons v. United States C C. The Commission’s Policy Statement Implementing Sect sub-arg 1319 — candidate
Koons v. United States D D. Sentence Reductions For Petitioners Would Subvert T sub-arg 305 — candidate
Koons v. United States D Table 2: Sentence Disparities Under Petitioners’ Appro sub-arg 620 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez I I. THIS COURT MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THESE APP sub-arg 837 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez II.A A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Of Intentional Vote Dilution Req sub-arg 1747 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez II.B B. The District Court Incorrectly Presumed Discriminat sub-arg 1211 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez II.C.1 1. Application of a strong presumption of good faith i sub-arg 697 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez II.C.2 2. Neither the district court nor plaintiffs’ filings sub-arg 999 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez III III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT CONGR sub-arg 1230 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims A.1 1. The contemporary state-law definitions reflected in sub-arg 674 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims A.2 2. The secondary sources on which Taylor relied confir sub-arg 1173 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims A.3 3. Taylor’s discussion of the ACCA’s design reinforces sub-arg ❝ 698 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims A.4 4. Taylor’s rejection of limiting constructions of “bu sub-arg 1109 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims B B. The Decisions Below Misconstrued The ACCA And This sub-arg 1869 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii I.A.1 1. Congress has not authorized review of respondents’ sub-arg 1158 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii I.A.2 2. Neither the APA nor principles of equity authorize sub-arg 851 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii I.B B. Respondents’ Establishment Clause Claim Is Not Just sub-arg 966 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.A.1 1. The President validly exercised his statutory autho sub-arg 2210 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.A.2 2. The President’s authority to suspend entry is not s sub-arg 1814 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.A.3 3. The court of appeals’ narrow view of the President’ sub-arg 363 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.B.1 1. Section 1152(a)(1)(A) does not conflict with the Pr sub-arg 1621 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.B.2 2. In the event of a conflict, Section 1152(a)(1)(A) d sub-arg 479 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.B.3 3. Section 1152(a)(1)(A) cannot justify enjoining the sub-arg 167 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii III.A A. The Proclamation Is Constitutional Under Mandel And sub-arg 1652 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii III.B B. The Proclamation Is Constitutional Under Domestic E sub-arg 1900 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii IV IV. THE GLOBAL INJUNCTION IS VASTLY OVERBROAD sub-arg 1079 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n A A. Petitioner’s Conduct Falls Within The Plain Meaning sub-arg 2030 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n B B. Petitioner Is Liable For Fraudulent Conduct Under S sub-arg ❝ 2132 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n C C. Imposing Liability For Petitioner’s Active Deceptio sub-arg 958 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n D D. No Canon Of Construction Supports Departing From Th sub-arg 866 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n E E. Petitioner’s Policy Arguments Provide No Sound Basi sub-arg 637 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill I.A A. The Substantial-Evidence Test Measures Only The Suf sub-arg 756 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill I.B B. The Sufficiency Of The Evidence In The Administrati sub-arg 1367 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill I.C.1 1. Petitioner’s reliance on Perales is misplaced sub-arg 1136 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill I.C.2 2. No other decision of this Court supports petitioner sub-arg 868 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill I.D D. The Vocational Expert’s Hearing Testimony In This C sub-arg 547 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill II.A A. Vocational Experts’ Expertise And Impartiality Make sub-arg 495 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill II.B B. Claimants Can Effectively Probe The Testimony Of Vo sub-arg 1135 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill II.C C. Claimants Can Submit Rebuttal Evidence, Including F sub-arg 186 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill II.D D. Petitioner’s Proposed Rule Would Be Impractical And sub-arg 638 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. A A. Sue-And-Be-Sued Clauses Embody Limitations On The W sub-arg 869 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. B.1 1. The longstanding immunity from suit based on the pe sub-arg 2354 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. B.2 2. Courts have uniformly held, based on separation-ofp sub-arg 550 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. B.3 3. Tort suits against TVA for damages arising from the sub-arg 1299 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. C C. TVA’s Immunity From Suit Based On Performance Of Di sub-arg 818 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. D D. Petitioners’ Arguments For Reading The TVA’s SueAnd sub-arg 1247 — candidate
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP A A. Enforcement Of A Security Interest, Without More, G sub-arg 1543 — candidate
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP B B. Initiating A Nonjudicial-Foreclosure Proceeding Con sub-arg 1473 — candidate
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP C C. Petitioner’s Contrary Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 1866 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. I.A.1 1. The statutory phrase “establishes or changes a subs sub-arg ❝ 2080 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. I.A.2 2. The drafting history of Section 1395hh confirms tha sub-arg 1851 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. I.B B. The Challenged Agency Action Here Is Based On A Non sub-arg 998 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. I.C C. The D.C. Circuit’s Interpretation of Section 1395hh sub-arg 696 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. II.A A. Section 1395hh(a)(4) Did Not Provide An Independent sub-arg 662 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. II.B B. Even If Section 1395hh(a)(4) Had Some Independent F sub-arg 967 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. A A. The Text And Structure Of The Patent Act Demonstrat sub-arg 1619 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. B B. The History Of Federal Agencies’ Participation In T sub-arg 1282 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. C C. Authorizing Federal Agencies To Petition For Post-I sub-arg 800 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. D D. Petitioner’s Contrary Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 3088 — candidate
Smith v. Berryhill A A. Section 405(g) Authorizes Judicial Review Of The Ap sub-arg 2383 — candidate
Smith v. Berryhill B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Reasons For Refusing Judicial sub-arg 3550 — candidate
United States v. Haymond I.A.1 1. Administering a sentence by revoking a defendant’s sub-arg 1101 — candidate
United States v. Haymond I.A.2 2. The Sixth Amendment-based Apprendi rule applies onl sub-arg 823 — candidate
United States v. Haymond I.A.3 3. Historical practice confirms that juries have no ro sub-arg 1187 — candidate
United States v. Haymond I.B B. The Right To A Jury Finding Beyond A Reasonable Dou sub-arg 2066 — candidate
United States v. Haymond I.C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Deeming Section 3583( sub-arg 2049 — candidate
United States v. Haymond II II. AT A MINIMUM, 18 U.S.C. 3583(k) IS NOT FACIALLY UN sub-arg 821 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie A.1 1. Section 552(a)(1)(D) does not encompass the Waterwa sub-arg ❝ 3659 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie A.2 2. The broader structure of FOIA reinforces the conclu sub-arg 751 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie B B. The Waterways Provision Is Not Reviewable As A VA A sub-arg 796 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie C C. The Waterways Provision Is Not Reviewable Under Sec sub-arg 1988 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. I.A A. The Hobbs Act Provides The Exclusive Channel For Ob sub-arg 2195 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. I.B.1 1. Petitioners’ arguments lack a basis in the text sub-arg 1125 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. I.B.2 2. The Administrative Procedure Act does not support p sub-arg 1473 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. I.B.3 3. Petitioners’ other statutory arguments also lack me sub-arg 409 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. I.B.4 4. Principles of constitutional avoidance do not suppo sub-arg 416 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. II II. PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT THAT THE 2006 FCC ORDER WAS sub-arg 391 — candidate
Stokeling v. United States A A. Force Sufficient To Overcome A Victim’s Resistance sub-arg 2798 — candidate
Stokeling v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Narrowing Constructions Of “Physical F sub-arg 2256 — candidate
Stokeling v. United States C C. This Court Should Not Adopt Petitioner’s Expansive sub-arg 1423 — candidate
Gundy v. United States I.A A. Congress May Delegate Discretion To The Executive I sub-arg ❝ 1616 — candidate
Gundy v. United States I.B.1 1. Congress identified the official to whom authority sub-arg 340 — candidate
Gundy v. United States I.B.2 2. Congress identified the general policy it intended sub-arg 1893 — candidate
Gundy v. United States I.B.3 3. Petitioner’s contrary arguments lack merit sub-arg 1921 — candidate
Gundy v. United States A A. SORNA Does Not Implicate Retroactivity Concerns sub-arg 549 — candidate
Gundy v. United States B B. SORNA Does Not Implicate Federalism Concerns In Thi sub-arg 475 — candidate
Gundy v. United States C C. SORNA Does Not Empower The Attorney General To Crea sub-arg 2148 — candidate
Gundy v. United States D D. Petitioner Has Not Justified Departing From This Co sub-arg 775 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.A.1 1. An “offence” is the transgression of a specific sov sub-arg 1010 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.A.2 2. The Constitution’s federalist structure distinguish sub-arg 1142 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.A.3 3. A sovereign-specific interpretation of “same offenc sub-arg 693 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.B B. The Constitution’s Text And Structure Have Underpin sub-arg 2788 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.C.1 1. The Framers did not intend the Double Jeopardy Clau sub-arg 635 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.C.2.a. Commo a. Common-law decisions do not support petitioner’s as sub-arg 1435 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.C.2.b. Treat b. Treatises cited by petitioner do not illustrate a u sub-arg 655 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.C.2.c c. Early state cases do not support petitioner sub-arg 477 — candidate
Gamble v. United States II.A.1 1. Abandoning the sovereign-specific understanding of sub-arg 1411 — candidate
Gamble v. United States II.A.2 2. No intervening developments justify a reinterpretat sub-arg 474 — candidate
Gamble v. United States II.B B. The Political Branches Are Best Situated To Address sub-arg 827 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.A.1 1. The Service found that Unit 1 contains “habitat” fo sub-arg 779 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.A.2 2. Under the Act, an area may be “habitat” even if it sub-arg 516 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.A.3 3. The Service’s understanding that Unit 1 is “habitat sub-arg 2233 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.B.1 1. The Service properly determined that Unit 1 is esse sub-arg 1699 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.B.2 2. The Act’s other conservation tools have no bearing sub-arg ❝ 414 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.C C. Petitioner’s Reliance On Constitutional-Avoidance P sub-arg 577 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. II.A A. The Act Provides No Meaningful Standard To Evaluate sub-arg 861 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. II.B B. Petitioner Identifies No Meaningful Standard For Re sub-arg 1376 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. II.C C. To The Extent The Service’s Decision Not To Exclude sub-arg 222 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill A.1 1. The text of Section 406(b) applies only to attorney sub-arg 478 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill A.2 2. The surrounding statutory context confirms that Sec sub-arg 477 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill A.3 3. No sound basis exists for disregarding Section 406( sub-arg 728 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill B B. Section 406 Provides Alternative Means To Regulate sub-arg 1047 — candidate
Quarles v. United States A.1 1. The plain meaning of “remaining” refers to continuo sub-arg 1906 — candidate
Quarles v. United States A.2 2. Legal authority at the time of the ACCA supports th sub-arg 2638 — candidate
Quarles v. United States B B. The Normal Understanding Of “Remaining” Is The Only sub-arg 1379 — candidate
Quarles v. United States C.1 1. Petitioner’s state survey is misguided sub-arg 1276 — candidate
Quarles v. United States C.2 2. Petitioner’s position overcomplicates Taylor and in sub-arg 371 — candidate
Quarles v. United States D D. The Court Of Appeals Correctly Upheld Petitioner’s sub-arg 213 — candidate
Mont v. United States I.A A. Incarceration That Is Deemed Part Of The Sentence F sub-arg 1539 — candidate
Mont v. United States I.B.1 1. Imprisonment for a separate crime interrupts the fu sub-arg 1185 — candidate
Mont v. United States I.B.2 2. The rationales for tolling supervised release when sub-arg 1011 — candidate
Mont v. United States I.C C. Petitioner’s Interpretation Of Section 3624(e) Is F sub-arg 1595 — candidate
Mont v. United States II.A A. Petitioner’s Supervised-Release Term Did Not Run Du sub-arg 260 — candidate
Mont v. United States II.B B. At A Minimum, Petitioner’s Supervised-Release Term sub-arg 1493 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A.1 1. The 1976 Act authorizes the Park Service to regulat sub-arg 242 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A.2 2. Section 103(c) does not strip the Park Service of i sub-arg 981 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A.3 3. Petitioner’s contrary arguments are incompatible wi sub-arg 668 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost B.1 1. The Park Service’s regulations of navigable waters sub-arg 1391 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost B.2 2. Congress has ratified the Secretary’s construction sub-arg 492 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost C.1 1. Surrounding provisions demonstrate that the Park Se sub-arg ❝ 1767 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost C.2 2. Neither petitioner nor Alaska persuasively accounts sub-arg 696 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost D D. The Placement And History Of Section 103(c) Confirm sub-arg 640 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost E E. Petitioner Errs In Urging A Clear-Statement Rule As sub-arg 716 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost F F. The Secretary’s Interpretation Would Warrant Chevro sub-arg 445 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I.A A. Section 922(g)’s Regulatory Prohibition Of FirearmR sub-arg 830 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I.B.1 1. Statutory text, structure, and context illustrate t sub-arg 2186 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I.B.2 2. This Court has understood that a prosecution for vi sub-arg 801 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I.B.3 3. Congress enacted the “knowingly violates” requireme sub-arg 1200 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I.C C. Congress Had Sound Reasons For Requiring Proof Of A sub-arg 1374 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I.D D. Petitioner’s Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 1986 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States II II. THE JUDGMENT BELOW CAN BE AFFIRMED ON THE ALTERNAT sub-arg 736 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I.A.1 1. The basis for Seminole Rock deference is unclear sub-arg 1849 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I.A.2 2. Seminole Rock deference is in tension with the APA’ sub-arg 876 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I.A.3 3. Overly broad deference to agency interpretations ca sub-arg 275 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I.B.1 1. Courts should apply Seminole Rock deference only af sub-arg 467 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I.B.2 2. Courts should apply Seminole Rock deference only if sub-arg 1262 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie II.A.1 1. Congress could alter Seminole Rock deference sub-arg 441 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie II.A.2 2. Overruling Seminole Rock deference would upset sign sub-arg ❝ 517 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie II.A.3 3. Overruling Seminole Rock deference would impose pra sub-arg 1387 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie II.B B. Petitioner Fails To Offer Sufficient Special Justif sub-arg 734 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie III III. THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED sub-arg 1623 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti A A. This Court’s Decision In Tam Is Limited To Trademar sub-arg 775 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti B.1 1. The scandalous-marks provision does not restrict sp sub-arg 1270 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti B.2 2. Administration of the federal trademark-registratio sub-arg 387 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti B.3 3. The scandalous-marks provision is viewpoint-neutral sub-arg 1214 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti C.1 1. A ban on registration of scandalous marks is a long sub-arg 1584 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti C.2 2. The scandalous-marks provision does not subject res sub-arg 541 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti D.1 1. The court of appeals erred in treating the scandalo sub-arg 241 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti D.2 2. The court of appeals erred in treating as irrelevan sub-arg 608 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti D.3 3. A decision sustaining the scandalous-marks provisio sub-arg 496 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti D.4 4. The court of appeals’ concern that the scandalous-m sub-arg 480 — candidate
United States v. Davis I.A.1 1. In the context of a jury trial on a Section 924(c) sub-arg 1359 — candidate
United States v. Davis I.A.2 2. The surrounding text of Section 924(c)(3)(B) suppor sub-arg 1716 — candidate
United States v. Davis I.B.1 1. Decisions adopting the categorical approach in the sub-arg 1612 — candidate
United States v. Davis I.B.2 2. The adoption of the categorical approach in the pri sub-arg 1252 — candidate
United States v. Davis I.C C. The Constitutional-Avoidance Canon Requires That Se sub-arg 2290 — candidate
United States v. Davis II II. RESPONDENTS’ SECTION 924(c) CONVICTIONS ARE VALID sub-arg 526 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court A.1 1. The district court clearly and indisputably erred i sub-arg 4458 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court A.2 2. The district court clearly and indisputably erred i sub-arg 1729 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court B B. No Other Adequate Means Exist To Attain Relief sub-arg 397 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court C C. Mandamus Is Appropriate Under The Circumstances sub-arg 243 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. I.A A. The Plain Meaning Of “Expenses” Includes Personnel sub-arg 1677 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. I.B B. The Statutory Structure And Purpose Confirm That “T sub-arg 1177 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. I.C C. The History Of Section 145 Supports The USPTO’s Rea sub-arg 957 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. II.A A. Section 145 Does Not Implicate The American Rule sub-arg 1444 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. II.B B. Section 145 Provides Clear And Explicit Authority T sub-arg 882 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.A A. Respondents Lack Article III Standing sub-arg 1106 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.B B. The Content Of The Census Questionnaire Is Committe sub-arg 1925 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.C C. The Secretary’s Decision Was Not Arbitrary And Capr sub-arg 3377 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.D D. The Secretary’s Stated Rationale Cannot Be Set Asid sub-arg 1215 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.E.1 1. Section 6(c) of the Census Act does not support set sub-arg 854 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.E.2 2. Section 141(f ) of the Census Act does not support sub-arg 1366 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.F F. Respondents’ Constitutional Claims Do Not Provide A sub-arg 328 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York II II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN AUTHORIZING DISCOVERY sub-arg 266 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. I.A A. A Plan Beneficiary Has Standing To Assert Claims On sub-arg 1328 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. I.B B. A Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Standing Alone, Constit sub-arg 1442 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. I.C C. A Material Increase In The Risk Of Monetary Loss Is sub-arg 1335 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. II II. BENEFICIARIES OF OVERFUNDED ERISA DEFINEDBENEFIT P sub-arg 690 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. III III. BENEFICIARIES OF OVERFUNDED ERISA DEFINEDBENEFIT sub-arg 484 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I.A.1 1. The ACA’s provision for HHS to make risk-corridors sub-arg 2305 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I.A.2 2. The ACA did not mandate compensation to insurers as sub-arg 1375 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I.A.3 3. Petitioners’ contrary arguments invoking contractla sub-arg 2366 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I.B.1 1. Congress’s express bar on using the only potentiall sub-arg 799 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I.B.2 2. Petitioners’ contrary arguments lack merit sub-arg 1605 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States II II. NEITHER SECTION NOR HHS’S ACTIONS CREATED AN IMPLI sub-arg 984 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n A.1 1. Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because o sub-arg 3147 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n A.2 2. Discrimination based on transgender status does not sub-arg 3841 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n B.1 1. Sex stereotyping by itself is not a Title VII viola sub-arg 1535 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n B.2 2. Discrimination based on transgender status does not sub-arg 1064 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. A A. The Disputed Issue In This Case Concerns Interim Ow sub-arg 1122 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. B.1 1. In the portion of its Bob Richards opinion relevant sub-arg 954 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. B.2 2. Bob Richards reflects a correct interpretation of t sub-arg 1469 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. B.3 3. The IRS regulations do not give a corporate parent sub-arg 402 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. C C. The Tax Allocation Agreement That Governs This Case sub-arg 1201 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. D D. Petitioner’s Reading Of The Agreement Is Inconsiste sub-arg 1260 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC I.A A. The Appointments Clause By Its Terms Does Not Gover sub-arg 831 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC I.B B. The Territory Clause Confirms That The Appointments sub-arg 834 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC I.C C. Constitutional Structure Confirms That The Appointm sub-arg ❝ 1685 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC I.D D. Historical Practice Confirms That The Appointments sub-arg 2200 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC II.A A. The Board’s Members Qualify As Territorial Officers sub-arg 1716 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC II.B B. Respondents’ Contrary Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg ❝ 2956 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr A.1 1. The statutory provisions limiting judicial review o sub-arg 2134 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr A.2 2. The Convention and its implementing provisions conf sub-arg 833 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr A.3 3. The REAL ID Act further confirms that Section 1252( sub-arg 1088 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr B B. Petitioner’s Contrary Interpretation Of The Statute sub-arg 1519 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr C C. The Alternative Jurisdictional Theories Adopted By sub-arg 915 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n I.A A. The Courts’ Power To Award The SEC “Any Equitable R sub-arg 586 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n I.B.1 1. Beginning in the 1960s, lower courts concluded that sub-arg 592 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n I.B.2 2. In five statutes enacted between 1988 and 2010, Con sub-arg ❝ 2243 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n I.B.3 3. The larger statutory context, and the history of th sub-arg 1381 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n II.A.1 1. Statutory provisions that specifically authorize di sub-arg 453 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n II.A.2 2. Historical practice does not support petitioners’ c sub-arg 699 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n II.A.3 3. The punitive features of disgorgement do not remove sub-arg 1054 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n II.A.4 4. The fact that disgorged funds are not always distri sub-arg 1074 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n II.A.5 5. Disgorgement can be an appropriate equitable remedy sub-arg 681 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n II.B B. Petitioners’ Practical Arguments Are Unsound sub-arg 829 — candidate
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n/Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n A A. The Forest Service Has Authority To Grant A Pipelin sub-arg 958 — candidate
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n/Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n B.1 1. Congress’s designation of a national scenic trail d sub-arg 2562 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. A A. By Its Plain Terms, The Safe Berth Clause Warrants sub-arg 3021 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. B.1 1. For many years, both this Court and the Second Circ sub-arg 2401 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. B.2 2. English courts have likewise interpreted the safe b sub-arg 570 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. B.3 3. Arbitral decisions confirm that the safe berth clau sub-arg 496 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. C.1 1. To the extent policy is relevant, sound policy supp sub-arg 983 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. C.2 2. Tort principles have no relevance to the parties’ c sub-arg 577 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. C.3 3. Interpreting the safe berth clause according to its sub-arg 554 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal I.A A. DHS’s Decision To Rescind A Policy Of Enforcement D sub-arg 1189 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal I.B B. The Lower Courts’ Rationales For Reviewing DHS’s De sub-arg 2933 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal II.A A. The Rescission Is Reasonable In Light Of DHS’s Seri sub-arg 1184 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal II.B.1 1. The Secretary reasonably concluded that DHS should sub-arg 355 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal II.B.2 2. The Secretary reasonably concluded that DHS should sub-arg 261 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal II.B.3 3. The Secretary reasonably concluded that DHS should sub-arg 321 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal II.B.4 4. The Secretary adequately considered any reliance in sub-arg 269 — candidate
Shular v. United States A A. Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s Text And Context Show Th sub-arg 1543 — candidate
Shular v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Importation Of A Generic-Analogue Appr sub-arg 2869 — candidate
Shular v. United States C C. Extending A Generic-Analogue Analysis To Section 92 sub-arg 953 — candidate
Barton v. Barr U U.S.C. 1182(a)(2) THAT RENDERS HIM INADMISSIBLE AND TH sub-arg 310 — candidate
Barton v. Barr A A. Under A Straightforward Application Of The Statutor sub-arg 362 — candidate
Barton v. Barr B B. An Alien Need Not Be Seeking Admission For An Offen sub-arg 2537 — candidate
Barton v. Barr C.1 1. Petitioner’s preferred interpretation lacks merit sub-arg 4680 — candidate
Barton v. Barr C.2 2. Petitioner’s fallback interpretation lacks merit sub-arg 310 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States A A. A Sentencing Claim That A Defendant Did Not Specifi sub-arg 1329 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States B.1 1. Under Rule 51’s text, a defendant preserves a subst sub-arg 1726 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States B.2 2. Requiring a substantive-reasonableness objection wo sub-arg 836 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States B.3 3. Prevailing circuit practice reflects the proper app sub-arg 442 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States C C. This Court Should Vacate The Judgment Below And Rem sub-arg 524 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr A A. The Phrase “Questions Of Law” In Section 1252(a)(2) sub-arg 3407 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr B.1 1. “Questions of law” cannot reasonably be construed t sub-arg 793 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr B.2 2. The mixed question at issue here is primarily factu sub-arg 1167 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr C.1 1. Petitioners’ contention that the phrase “questions sub-arg 3074 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr C.2 2. Petitioners’ contention that the mixed question at sub-arg 796 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr D D. Petitioners’ Case-Specific Grounds For Resolving Th sub-arg 633 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie I.A A. Section 633a(a)’s Text Requires But-For Causation sub-arg 2182 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie I.B B. Petitioner’s Textual Arguments Are Unpersuasive sub-arg 2759 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie II.A A. Petitioner’s Historical Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 2382 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie II.B B. Petitioner Misconstrues The EEOC’s Regulations And sub-arg 1572 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie III III. PETITIONER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERALSECTOR sub-arg 847 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP A A. The Text, Structure, And History Of The AIA Demonst sub-arg 2832 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP B B. This Court’s Decision In Cuozzo Confirms That The U sub-arg 1752 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP C C. Precluding Review Of The USPTO’s Section 315(b) Det sub-arg 921 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels I.A A. A Crime That Could Be “Punished By Death” Under The sub-arg 1778 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels I.B B. Even If A Constitutional Analysis Were Required, Th sub-arg 2333 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels II II. BRIGGS’S RAPE CHARGE WAS ALSO TIMELY UNDER THE 200 sub-arg 1063 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam I.A.1 1. Aliens seeking initial admission are entitled to on sub-arg 647 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam I.A.2 2. Unlawful entrants like respondent are properly clas sub-arg 1109 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam I.B.1 1. At common law, a writ of habeas corpus was a mechan sub-arg 366 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam I.B.2 2. The relief that respondent seeks falls well outside sub-arg 1344 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam I.C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Contrary Reasoning Lacks Meri sub-arg 1290 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam II II. EVEN IF THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE GUARANTEES SOME LIMI sub-arg 2153 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. A A. Foreign Entities Operating Abroad Have No First Ame sub-arg 1787 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. B B. Respondents’ Own First Amendment Rights Do Not Bar sub-arg 1539 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. C C. This Court’s Prior Decision In This Case Does Not S sub-arg 1443 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. D D. No Other Ground Forecloses Application Of The Leade sub-arg 968 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.A.1 1. The text of Section 355(f) limits judicial review t sub-arg 892 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.A.2 2. The structure of Section 355 confirms that review i sub-arg 783 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.A.3 3. Petitioner’s counterarguments lack merit sub-arg 1394 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.B B. Section 231g Reinforces That Reopening Decisions Ar sub-arg 1371 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.C.1 1. Reopening is a matter of agency grace sub-arg 1028 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.C.2 2. Judicial review of reopening denials would undermin sub-arg 528 — candidate
Salinas v. United States II.A A. The Presumption Of Judicial Review Does Not Dictate sub-arg 549 — candidate
Salinas v. United States II.B B. The Government’s Interpretation Does Not Broadly Fo sub-arg 964 — candidate
Salinas v. United States II.C C. The Board Has Not Conceded That Reopening Denials A sub-arg 519 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania I.A A. The ACA Authorizes Both Expanded Exemptions sub-arg 1430 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania I.B.1 1. RFRA requires the expanded religious exemption sub-arg 1761 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania I.B.2 2. RFRA authorizes the expanded religious exemption sub-arg 1207 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania II.A.1 1. The final rules comply with the APA’s procedural re sub-arg 577 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania II.A.2 2. Any procedural defects in the interim rules do not sub-arg 1122 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania II.B.1 1. The interim rules were expressly authorized by stat sub-arg 807 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania II.B.2 2. The interim rules were justified by the APA’s goodc sub-arg 205 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania III.A A. Nationwide Injunctions Exceed Courts’ Constitutiona sub-arg 824 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania III.B B. Any Relief In This Case Should Be Narrowed To The P sub-arg 996 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. A A. Like The Addition Of An Entity Designation, The Add sub-arg ❝ 1776 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. B.1 1. This case directly implicates the concerns that ani sub-arg ❝ 1236 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. B.2 2. The nature of the Internet further confirms that ad sub-arg 937 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. B.3 3. Respondent has ample protection against unfair comp sub-arg 425 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. C.1 1. Respondent’s survey evidence is irrelevant under Go sub-arg 1115 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. C.2 2. Reliance on respondent’s survey evidence conflates sub-arg 1190 — candidate
Borden v. United States A.1 1. Voisine makes clear that the language of the ACCA’s sub-arg 1444 — candidate
Borden v. United States A.2 2. The elements clause was specifically designed to co sub-arg 1103 — candidate
Borden v. United States B.1 1. The logic of Voisine applies no differently to the sub-arg 2489 — candidate
Borden v. United States B.2 2. Petitioner’s knowledge-plus requirement would contr sub-arg ❝ 3529 — candidate
Borden v. United States C C. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 338 — candidate
Brownback v. King A.1 1. The judgment bar is an important part of the FTCA’s sub-arg 852 — candidate
Brownback v. King A.2 2. The text and context of the judgment bar, and this sub-arg 1029 — candidate
Brownback v. King A.3 3. The FTCA’s structure and history confirm that the j sub-arg 586 — candidate
Brownback v. King A.4 4. The purposes of the judgment bar are served by appl sub-arg 488 — candidate
Brownback v. King B.1 1. The panel majority’s reasoning is contrary to this sub-arg 1373 — candidate
Brownback v. King B.2 2. The panel majority’s reasoning is contrary to commo sub-arg 406 — candidate
Brownback v. King B.3 3. The panel majority’s reasoning is contrary to every sub-arg 470 — candidate
Brownback v. King C.1 1. The judgment bar is not limited to individual claim sub-arg 1471 — candidate
Brownback v. King C.2 2. The judgment bar does not exempt individual claims sub-arg 912 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. A A. Congress Incorporated The Deliberative Process Priv sub-arg 1215 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. B.1 1. The Services continued deliberating until they issu sub-arg 607 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. B.2 2. The Services’ draft documents that were not adopted sub-arg 1482 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. C.1 1. Draft documents do not lose their privilege when th sub-arg 1022 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. C.2 2. A discussion draft does not become final unless and sub-arg 1060 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. C.3 3. The court of appeals’ reasoning would undermine Con sub-arg 1039 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. I.A.1 1. The applicability of the government-debt exception sub-arg 647 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. I.A.2 2. Acceptance of the court of appeals’ approach would sub-arg 1492 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. I.B.1 1. The calls that are covered by the government-debt e sub-arg 1527 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. I.B.2 2. The government-debt exception satisfies intermediat sub-arg 503 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. II.A A. The Government-Debt Exception Is Severable From The sub-arg 1536 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. II.B B. Respondents’ Contrary Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 845 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith U U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) AND (B)(i) ARE CONSTITUTIONAL sub-arg 170 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith A A. Respondent’s Convictions Are Invalid Only If The St sub-arg 499 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith B.1 1. The terms “encourage” and “induce” in a criminal la sub-arg 793 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith B.2 2. Context and history confirm that Section 1324(a)(1) sub-arg 1095 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith B.3 3. The canon of constitutional avoidance would come in sub-arg 489 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith C.1 1. The plainly legitimate sweep of the statute encompa sub-arg 988 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith C.2 2. The court of appeals’ parade of hypotheticals does sub-arg 1241 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith C.3 3. As-applied challenges, not facial overbreadth claim sub-arg 171 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith D D. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Reaching Out To Facia sub-arg 1741 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.A.1 1. The Decision of 1789 sub-arg 630 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.A.2 2. Myers sub-arg 1147 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.A.3 3. Humphrey’s Executor sub-arg 1269 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.A.4 4. Free Enterprise Fund sub-arg 875 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.B B. The Humphrey’s Executor Exception Should Not Be Ext sub-arg 3351 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.C C. The Contrary Reasoning Of The Ninth And D.C. Circui sub-arg 1328 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.D D. If This Court Were To Conclude That Humphrey’s Exec sub-arg 496 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau II II. THE REMOVAL RESTRICTION IS SEVERABLE FROM THE REST sub-arg 687 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir A.1 1. The broader statutory language makes clear that dam sub-arg 484 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir A.2 2. Congress did not intend to impose personal liabilit sub-arg 1682 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir A.3 3. Damages awards against federal officials in their p sub-arg 2534 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir A.4 4. This Court has held that damages are not “appropria sub-arg 623 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir B.1 1. RFRA’s definition of “government” does not render d sub-arg 1086 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir B.2 2. Franklin does not require a presumption in favor of sub-arg 1310 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez I.A A. The INA Requires A Court Of Appeals To Sustain The sub-arg 530 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez I.B B. The Board’s Determinations Here Easily Satisfy The sub-arg 704 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez I.C C. The Court of Appeals Overturned The Board’s Reasona sub-arg 512 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez I.D D. Respondents’ Arguments That The Decisions Below Pro sub-arg 1817 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMPOUNDED ITS ERROR IN DAI B sub-arg 1107 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab I.A A. The Statutory Text Authorizes MPP sub-arg 376 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab I.B.1 1. Section establishes alternative removal procedures, sub-arg 1062 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab I.B.2 2. Section 1225(b)(2)(B)(ii) does not make respondents sub-arg 459 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab I.B.3 3. It is implausible that Congress excluded all aliens sub-arg 434 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab II.A A. Section 1231 Is Neither Enforceable Nor Applicable sub-arg 1002 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab II.B B. MPP Complies With Section 1231 sub-arg ❝ 1145 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab III III. MPP IS EXEMPT FROM NOTICE-AND-COMMENT RULEMAKING sub-arg ❝ 882 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab IV.A A. Universal Injunctions Exceed District Courts’ Const sub-arg 772 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab IV.B B. The Universal Injunction In This Case Is Unlawful sub-arg 961 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project I.A A. The APA Requires Judicial Deference To Reasoned Age sub-arg 493 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project I.B B. Judicial Deference Is Especially Warranted When The sub-arg ❝ 1141 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project II.A A. The Reconsideration Order sub-arg 1029 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project II.B B. The 2016 And Incubator Orders sub-arg 162 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project III.A A. The Court Of Appeals Disregarded The Statutory Text sub-arg 744 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project III.B B. The Court Of Appeals Substituted Its Judgment For T sub-arg ❝ 1906 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project III.C C. The Decision Below Undermines The Proper Functionin sub-arg 1062 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project III.D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Remedy Was Overbroad sub-arg 550 — candidate
Department of Justice v. House Comm. on the Judiciary A A. Text, History, And Precedent Demonstrate That “Judi sub-arg ❝ 4546 — candidate
Department of Justice v. House Comm. on the Judiciary B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Interpretation Would Create S sub-arg 2525 — candidate
United States v. Cooley A.1 1. The tribes’ status as dependent sovereigns has not sub-arg 1192 — candidate
United States v. Cooley A.2 2. This Court’s precedents preserve tribal authority t sub-arg 1169 — candidate
United States v. Cooley A.3 3. Historical practice confirms that tribes retain lim sub-arg 1320 — candidate
United States v. Cooley B.1 1. The Ninth Circuit’s approach lacks legal support sub-arg 960 — candidate
United States v. Cooley B.2 2. The Ninth Circuit’s approach unsettles and undermin sub-arg 3390 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. A A. Under The Appointments Clause, An Officer Whose Wor sub-arg 2167 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. B B. Administrative Patent Judges Are Inferior Officers sub-arg 1857 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. C.1 1. The court of appeals erred in its application of Ed sub-arg 2205 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. C.2 2. History provides no sound basis for classifying adm sub-arg 911 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul I.A A. Under A General Rule Of Administrative Law, Parties sub-arg 1031 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul I.B B. Under The Court’s Appointments Clause Cases, Partie sub-arg 950 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul I.C C. Petitioners Have Forfeited Their Appointments Claus sub-arg 1688 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul II.A A. Courts Should Continue To Apply Forfeiture Rules sub-arg 1030 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul II.B.1 1. Precedent and practical considerations support the sub-arg 860 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul II.B.2 2. Sims v. Apfel does not require a contrary result sub-arg 2110 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul II.C C. Forfeiture Rules Apply To Appointments Clause Chall sub-arg 1847 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul II.D D. The Court Should Not Excuse Petitioners’ Forfeiture sub-arg 418 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid A A. The Text Of Section 227(a)(1)(A) Is Best Read As Li sub-arg 2639 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid B B. The Differences Between The TCPA’s Prohibitions And sub-arg 835 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid C C. The TCPA’s Regulatory History Provides No Sound Rea sub-arg 745 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid D D. Policy Concerns Provide No Sound Reason To Reject T sub-arg 742 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins I.A.1 1. The succession clause precludes shareholders from b sub-arg 426 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins I.A.2 2. A claim is derivative if the corporation suffered t sub-arg 533 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins I.A.3 3. The shareholders’ challenge to the Third Amendment sub-arg ❝ 627 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins I.B B. The APA Does Not Convert The Shareholders’ Suit Int sub-arg 1140 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins I.C C. There Is No “Conflict Of Interest” Exception To The sub-arg 910 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins II.A.1 1. Congress granted the conservator broad powers sub-arg 852 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins II.A.2 2. FHFA as conservator exercised its broad statutory p sub-arg 1431 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins II.B.1 1. The Recovery Act’s provisions on receivership do no sub-arg 719 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins II.B.2 2. The common-law restrictions on conservatorships do sub-arg 274 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins II.B.3 3. The shareholders’ allegations about the purposes an sub-arg 800 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States A.1 1. The statutory definition of “exceeds authorized acc sub-arg 2282 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States A.2 2. The statutory and legislative history confirm that sub-arg 2251 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States B.1 1. Affirming petitioner’s conviction would not make ro sub-arg 2534 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States B.2 2. Petitioner’s constitutional concerns are unfounded sub-arg 1033 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States C C. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 295 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr A.1 1. Section 1229(a)(1)’s text supports the Board’s inte sub-arg 2324 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr A.2 2. Section 1229b(d)(1)(A)’s stop-time rule supports th sub-arg 1554 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr A.3 3. The broader statutory context shows that Section 12 sub-arg 1264 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr A.4 4. The relevant legislative and regulatory history doe sub-arg 1472 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr A.5 5. Practical considerations warrant no departure from sub-arg 897 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr B B. The Board’s Reasonable Interpretation Is Entitled T sub-arg 1193 — candidate
Greer v. United States A A. Relief On An Unpreserved Claim Of Error Is A Matter sub-arg 751 — candidate
Greer v. United States B.1 1. A reviewing court may look to the whole record to a sub-arg 1540 — candidate
Greer v. United States B.2 2. A reviewing court may likewise look to the whole re sub-arg 763 — candidate
Greer v. United States B.3 3. Review of the whole record is particularly appropri sub-arg 1041 — candidate
Greer v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Arguments For Restricting The PlainErr sub-arg 2842 — candidate
Greer v. United States D D. The Court Of Appeals Correctly Declined To Grant Pl sub-arg 1095 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez A.1 1. The text of Section 1231(a) shows that it governs r sub-arg ❝ 609 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez A.2 2. The text of Section 1226 shows that it does not gov sub-arg 435 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez A.3 3. Context and structure confirm that Section 1231(a), sub-arg 533 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez A.4 4. Statutory purposes confirm that Section 1231(a), no sub-arg 558 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez B.1 1. The court of appeals misinterpreted Section 1226 an sub-arg ❝ 1408 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez B.2 2. The court of appeals misinterpreted the provisions sub-arg 1112 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez B.3 3. The court of appeals’ decision rests on a mistaken sub-arg 1085 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez B.4 4. Respondents retain substantial protection under Sec sub-arg 520 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez C C. At A Minimum, The Government’s Interpretation Of Th sub-arg 638 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. A.1 1. The Anti-Injunction Act bars suits for the purpose sub-arg 1458 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. A.2 2. Petitioner’s suit is one for the purpose of restrai sub-arg 874 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. B.1 1. Petitioner’s suit to restrain the taxes that enforc sub-arg 1370 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. B.2 2. The application of the Anti-Injunction Act does not sub-arg 2169 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. B.3 3. Petitioner’s characterization of its objective in b sub-arg 907 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. C.1 1. The APA does not override the Anti-Injunction Act’s sub-arg 1002 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. C.2 2. Constitutional-avoidance principles provide no basi sub-arg 1277 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club I.A A. Respondents’ Asserted Interests Are Not Within The sub-arg 2197 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club I.B.1 1. Respondents do not have any constitutional claim di sub-arg 628 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club I.B.2 2. Any implied equitable cause of action would be subj sub-arg 1266 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club I.B.3 3. Section 8005 prescribes the relevant zone of intere sub-arg 426 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club II.A A. Congress Never “Denied” Any Request By DoD For The sub-arg 936 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club II.B B. DoD’s Need To Provide This Particular Counterdrug S sub-arg 280 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club II.C C. Providing Counterdrug Assistance To DHS At The Sout sub-arg 414 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas A.1 1. USCIS’s decision was consistent with the statutory sub-arg 1369 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas A.2 2. Other closely related statutory provisions support sub-arg 483 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas A.3 3. The TPS program’s history and purpose support USCIS sub-arg 1150 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas B B. Petitioners Have Not Shown That USCIS’s Statutory C sub-arg 1853 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas C.1 1. Petitioners’ argument disregards the statutory defi sub-arg 728 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas C.2 2. Petitioners’ syllogism relies on faulty premises sub-arg 1065 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas C.3 3. Petitioners’ argument favors a chain of inferences sub-arg 382 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas D.1 1. The Executive Branch has consistently interpreted t sub-arg 1097 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas D.2 2. Petitioners have failed to show that the government sub-arg 811 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York I.A A. The “Chilling Effect” Injury Supporting The Judgmen sub-arg 1021 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York I.B B. Any Alternative Apportionment-Based Injuries Are Al sub-arg 730 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York II.A A. The Census Act Permits The President To Direct The sub-arg 2005 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York II.B B. The Reapportionment Act Does Not Require The Presid sub-arg 4743 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York II.C C. Appellees’ Constitutional Claims Should Be Rejected sub-arg 365 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham A A. The Secretary Has Broad Statutory Authority To Appr sub-arg ❝ 950 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham B B. Section 1315 Authorizes Projects To Test Measures T sub-arg ❝ 1824 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Contrary View Of The Secretar sub-arg 2198 — candidate
United States v. Palomar-Santiago A A. The Statutory Text Establishes That An UnlawfulReen sub-arg ❝ 3643 — candidate
United States v. Palomar-Santiago B B. Section 1326(d)’s History And Purposes Confirm That sub-arg 2030 — candidate
United States v. Palomar-Santiago C C. Adopting The Court Of Appeals’ Rule Would Produce I sub-arg 458 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi I.A A. The Plain Text Of The Uniformed Services Exception sub-arg 1248 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi I.B B. The Definition Of “Uniformed Service” That Is Cross sub-arg 1991 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi II.A A. Petitioner Misconstrues The Plain Meaning Of The Te sub-arg 922 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi II.B B. Petitioner Does Not Account For The Inherently Civi sub-arg 1878 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi II.C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments Do Not Undermine T sub-arg 1014 — candidate
Wooden v. United States A.1 1. Offenses occur on different “occasions” when the cr sub-arg 2256 — candidate
Wooden v. United States A.2 2. The history of Section 924(e)(1) confirms that temp sub-arg 1296 — candidate
Wooden v. United States B.1 1. Petitioner’s interpretation is inconsistent with th sub-arg 2410 — candidate
Wooden v. United States B.2 2. Petitioner’s interpretation is not supported by the sub-arg 871 — candidate
Wooden v. United States B.3 3. Petitioner’s interpretation would be unworkable sub-arg ❝ 2327 — candidate
Wooden v. United States B.4 4. The Court should not resort to the rule of lenity sub-arg 135 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation A.1 1. Congress expressly and deliberately included ANCs i sub-arg 1167 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation A.2 2. The ISDA definition has long been understood to mea sub-arg 1347 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation A.3 3. Congress incorporated the settled meaning of the IS sub-arg 1296 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation A.4 4. Reading the ISDA definition to exclude ANCs would c sub-arg 706 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Reading ANCs Out Of T sub-arg 2433 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation C C. If The Recognition Clause Applies To ANCs, Then Con sub-arg 521 — candidate
Terry v. United States A.1 1. Petitioner’s “violation” is the criminal offense de sub-arg 843 — candidate
Terry v. United States A.2 2. Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act modified the s sub-arg 513 — candidate
Terry v. United States A.3 3. Petitioner has a covered offense even though Sectio sub-arg 539 — candidate
Terry v. United States B B. The Statutory Design And History Support Petitioner sub-arg 1610 — candidate
Terry v. United States C C. Lower Courts’ Rationales For Excluding Section 841( sub-arg 1365 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez A A. The Third And Ninth Circuits’ Bond-Hearing Regime H sub-arg 1193 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez B B. The Third And Ninth Circuits’ Bond-Hearing Regime C sub-arg 661 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez C C. Constitutional Avoidance Does Not Justify Imposing sub-arg 1620 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez D D. Zadvydas Does Not Justify Imposing The Third And Ni sub-arg 620 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation I.A.1 1. The Secretary’s approach to the Medicare fraction r sub-arg 2120 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation I.A.2 2. Other provisions of the Medicare Act confirm the Se sub-arg 652 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation I.A.3 3. The statutory structure, history, and purpose furth sub-arg 1241 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation I.B B. The Secretary’s Approach Embodies At A Minimum A Re sub-arg 840 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE sub-arg 918 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.A A. A Registration To Prescribe Drugs Under The CSA Is sub-arg ❝ 999 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.B.1 1. The CSA prohibits a physician from self-defining th sub-arg 618 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.B.2 2. This Court has recognized that a physician can viol sub-arg 1148 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.B.3 3. Congress designed the CSA to allow for the prosecut sub-arg 604 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.C.1 1. Petitioners’ construction of Section 841(a) is text sub-arg 726 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.C.2 2. The terms of the regulatory standard do not invite sub-arg 221 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.C.3 3. The regulatory standard does not contain an indepen sub-arg 354 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.C.4 4. The legal standard for physician prosecutions under sub-arg 317 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.C.5 5. Reference to the usual course of professional pract sub-arg 242 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.C.6 6. Petitioners’ practical concerns are unsupported sub-arg 761 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States II.A A. The Juries In Petitioners’ Cases Were Sufficiently sub-arg 781 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States II.B B. Any Instructional Defect Was Harmless sub-arg 560 — candidate
United States v. Taylor A A. Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery Is A Crime Of Violence sub-arg 3174 — candidate
United States v. Taylor B B. Excision Of Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery From Sectio sub-arg 2026 — candidate
United States v. Taylor C C. The Fourth Circuit’s Reasoning Is Unsound sub-arg 1756 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA I.A A. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Will Not Cause The C sub-arg 297 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA I.B B. Petitioners Are Not Injured By The Court Of Appeals sub-arg 361 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA I.C C. Petitioners Seek What Would In Substance Be An Impe sub-arg 728 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA I.D D. This Court Should Dismiss The Certiorari Petitions sub-arg 458 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.A.1 1. The CPP Repeal and ACE Rules rest on an interpretat sub-arg 439 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.A.2 2. Section 7411(d)(1)(A) should not be construed to li sub-arg 989 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.A.3 3. Nothing in Section 7411(a)(1) unambiguously limits sub-arg 612 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.B.1 1. Petitioners’ arguments do not support a categorical sub-arg 1379 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.B.2 2. Petitioners’ arguments focused on generation shifti sub-arg 1418 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.C.1 1. Petitioners cannot support their interpretation by sub-arg 1447 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.C.2 2. The constitutional-avoidance canon is inapplicable sub-arg 206 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.C.3 3. The federalism canon undermines, rather than suppor sub-arg 103 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States I.A A. Section 404 Motions Operate As A Limited Exception sub-arg 1337 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States I.B.1 1. The text, context, and purpose of Section 404 all r sub-arg 1236 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States I.B.2 2. Petitioner provides no sound reason for mandatory i sub-arg 1799 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States I.B.3 3. A mandatory approach would produce unwarranted sent sub-arg 620 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States I.C C. Section 404 Permits Consideration of Postsentencing sub-arg 798 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States II II. THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED sub-arg 760 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez I.A A. The Injunctions In These Cases Enjoin The Operation sub-arg ❝ 2415 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez I.B B. The Injunctions In These Cases Fall Outside The Exc sub-arg 2198 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez II.A A. The Ninth and Third Circuits’ Bond-Hearing Regime H sub-arg 1136 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez II.B B. The Ninth And Third Circuits’ Bond-Hearing Regime C sub-arg 653 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez II.C C. Constitutional Avoidance Does Not Justify Imposing sub-arg 1606 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez II.D D. Zadvydas Does Not Justify Imposing The Ninth And Th sub-arg 619 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States A.1 1. An “offence” is the transgression of a specific sov sub-arg 683 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States A.2 2. Indian tribes and the United States are distinct so sub-arg 693 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States A.3 3. Because petitioner’s conduct transgressed each sove sub-arg 421 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States B.1 1. Petitioner’s forum-focused approach cannot be squar sub-arg 497 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States B.2 2. Petitioner’s forum-focused approach lacks support i sub-arg 1766 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States C.1 1. The Courts of Indian Offenses exercise tribal autho sub-arg 1747 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States C.2 2. Petitioner’s forum-focused approach would be unwork sub-arg 1029 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States D D. Petitioner’s Approach Would Derogate The Sovereignt sub-arg 843 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate I.A.1 1. Appellees have not shown that their injury is fairl sub-arg 1107 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate I.A.2 2. An FEC regulation currently precludes the committee sub-arg 1108 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate I.B.1 1. Self-inflicted injury does not create standing sub-arg 423 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate I.B.2 2. The injury in this case was self-inflicted sub-arg 1053 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.A.1 1. On its face, the loan-repayment limit imposes at mo sub-arg 1041 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.A.2 2. As applied in this case, the loan-repayment limit d sub-arg 369 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.B.1 1. The loan-repayment limit serves the compelling inte sub-arg 1986 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.B.2 2. The loan-repayment limit is properly tailored sub-arg 482 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.C.1 1. The district court erred in concluding that the loa sub-arg 572 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.C.2 2. The district court erred in finding the loan-repaym sub-arg 1070 — candidate
George v. McDonough A.1 1. The term “clear and unmistakable error” is not natu sub-arg 1280 — candidate
George v. McDonough A.2 2. Under the VA’s current regulations implementing Sec sub-arg 1340 — candidate
George v. McDonough A.3 3. Section 7111 incorporates the preexisting regulator sub-arg 1758 — candidate
George v. McDonough A.4 4. The broader statutory context and practical conside sub-arg 648 — candidate
George v. McDonough A.5 5. Petitioner’s reliance on Social Security practices sub-arg 501 — candidate
George v. McDonough B B. Petitioner Has Not Established That The Outcome Of sub-arg 763 — candidate
United States v. State of Washington A A. Respondents Have Not Met Their Burden To Show That sub-arg 2087 — candidate
United States v. State of Washington B B. Although The Practical Importance Of This Case Is N sub-arg 733 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough I.A.1 1. The presumption that statutory time limits may be t sub-arg 1316 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough I.A.2 2. The one-year grace period in Section 5110(b)(1) is sub-arg 2347 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough I.B B. Even If The Presumption Of Equitable Tolling Were A sub-arg 4204 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough I.C C. Petitioner’s Reliance On The Pro-Veteran Canon Is M sub-arg 335 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough II II. EVEN IF THE ONE-YEAR GRACE PERIOD WERE AMENABLE TO sub-arg 901 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald U U.S. Trustee Program sub-arg 3382 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald B B. The Statutory Regime For Quarterly Fees Was At All sub-arg 1353 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald C C. Even If The Fee Disparity Could Be Attributed To Co sub-arg 1852 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald D D. If Unequal Fees Are Unconstitutional, Refunding The sub-arg 1169 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I.A A. The “Waters Of The United States” Include Adjacent sub-arg 1600 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I.B B. There Is No Sound Basis For Imposing Petitioners’ R sub-arg 1808 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I.C C. The Significant-Nexus Test Is A Permissible Basis F sub-arg 1808 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I.D D. The Agencies’ Understanding Of The CWA’s Coverage O sub-arg 426 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency II.A A. The Court Should Not Consider Petitioners’ New Argu sub-arg 289 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency II.B B. Petitioners’ New Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 1595 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED sub-arg 399 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I.A A. The Plain Meaning Of “Mistake” Encompasses Unintent sub-arg 2023 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I.B.1 1. The drafters deliberately modeled Rule 60(b)(1) on sub-arg ❝ 1357 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I.B.2 2. The 1946 amendments ensured that Rule 60(b)(1) woul sub-arg 1629 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I.C.1 1. Surrounding provisions support a plain-language int sub-arg 2235 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I.C.2 2. Applying the plain meaning of “mistake” promotes ju sub-arg 937 — candidate
Kemp v. United States II II. THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED sub-arg 233 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix I.A A. The Saving Clause Safeguards Against Leaving Federa sub-arg 1645 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix I.B.1 1. The habeas remedy allows statutory claims based on sub-arg 856 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix I.B.2 2. Pre-AEDPA habeas principles generally require a pri sub-arg 501 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix I.B.3 3. AEDPA’s restrictions on second or subsequent collat sub-arg 1959 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix II.A A. The Court’s Decision In Rehaif Is A Change In The I sub-arg 333 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix II.B B. Petitioner Cannot Satisfy The Threshold Requirement sub-arg 554 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE SA sub-arg 1387 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix IV.A A. Petitioner’s Approach Cannot Be Squared With The Te sub-arg 851 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix IV.B B. Petitioner’s Asserted Constitutional Concerns Are I sub-arg 754 — candidate
Biden v. Texas I.A.1 1. Section 1225(b)(2)(C) is not a mandatory safety val sub-arg 1035 — candidate
Biden v. Texas I.A.2 2. The radical implications of the court of appeals’ i sub-arg 1378 — candidate
Biden v. Texas I.B.1 1. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) is not an inflexible detentio sub-arg 1229 — candidate
Biden v. Texas I.B.2 2. The INA permits DHS to consider detention capacity sub-arg 709 — candidate
Biden v. Texas II.A A. The October 29 Termination Is A New Agency Decision sub-arg 1276 — candidate
Biden v. Texas II.B B. The Secretary’s Explanation For The October 29 Term sub-arg 1240 — candidate
Biden v. Texas II.C C. The October 29 Termination Decision Did Not Violate sub-arg 1091 — candidate
Percoco v. United States A A. Section 1346 Criminalizes Schemes To Defraud That I sub-arg 472 — candidate
Percoco v. United States B B. An Individual May Owe A Duty Of Honest Services To sub-arg 1567 — candidate
Percoco v. United States C C. Section 1346 Applies To Individuals Selected For Fo sub-arg 850 — candidate
Percoco v. United States D.1 1. Petitioner had been selected to be a public officia sub-arg 446 — candidate
Percoco v. United States D.2 2. Petitioner was functionally a public official when sub-arg 498 — candidate
Percoco v. United States D.3 3. The jury was adequately instructed on the COR Devel sub-arg 556 — candidate
Percoco v. United States E.1 1. Applying Section 1346 to incoming and functional pu sub-arg 675 — candidate
Percoco v. United States E.2 2. The rule of lenity and the vagueness doctrine do no sub-arg 380 — candidate
Percoco v. United States E.3 3. Section 1346’s application in this case does not in sub-arg 123 — candidate
Percoco v. United States E.4 4. Petitioner’s conviction is consistent with principl sub-arg 471 — candidate
Wilkins v. United States A.1 1. This Court has previously held that Section 2409a(g sub-arg 1211 — candidate
Wilkins v. United States A.2 2. Congress acquiesced in this Court’s jurisdictional sub-arg 824 — candidate
In re Grand Jury A.1 1. The narrow scope of federal common-law privilege di sub-arg 1362 — candidate
In re Grand Jury A.2 2. A lawyer’s tax-preparation advice is privileged onl sub-arg 1612 — candidate
In re Grand Jury A.3 3. Petitioner’s efforts to classify tax-preparation ad sub-arg 342 — candidate
In re Grand Jury B.1 1. It is undisputed that the purpose inquiry should be sub-arg 238 — candidate
In re Grand Jury B.2 2. “Reason and experience” support treating as privile sub-arg 2638 — candidate
In re Grand Jury C.1 1. Petitioner’s approach is unmoored from the foundati sub-arg ❝ 1174 — candidate
In re Grand Jury C.2 2. Petitioner’s test would be novel and disruptive sub-arg 1206 — candidate
In re Grand Jury D D. The Documents At Issue Here Were Not Privileged Und sub-arg 974 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland I.A A. The Traditional Tools Of Statutory Construction Est sub-arg 1914 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland I.B B. Petitioner’s Arguments To The Contrary Lack Merit sub-arg 1299 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland II.A A. Section 1252(d)(1) Requires Issue Exhaustion sub-arg 1520 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland II.B B. Petitioner’s Contrary Interpretation Of Section 125 sub-arg ❝ 601 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland II.C C. Section 1252(d)(1) Requires A Noncitizen To File A sub-arg 2060 — candidate
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States I.A A. Nothing In The Current Or Prior Versions Of 18 U.S. sub-arg 970 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority I.A A. Dual Status Technicians Are Employees Of A Federal sub-arg 386 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority I.B B. Petitioners Act On Behalf And Exercise The Authorit sub-arg 642 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority I.C C. The Act’s Context Supports The Conclusion That Dual sub-arg 908 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority II.A A. Petitioners Misconstrue The Principles That Require sub-arg 2778 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority II.B B. Petitioners’ Assertion That The Act Violates Federa sub-arg 1353 — candidate
Smith v. United States A A. Retrial In A Proper Venue Is The Traditional Remedy sub-arg 2943 — candidate
Smith v. United States B B. This Court’s General Precedents On Constitutional R sub-arg 1977 — candidate
Smith v. United States C.1 1. The purposes of the venue right do not favor the ou sub-arg 953 — candidate
Smith v. United States C.2 2. A vacatur on venue grounds is unlike a general verd sub-arg 431 — candidate
Smith v. United States C.3 3. The standard retrial-permissive remedy does not enc sub-arg 298 — candidate
Smith v. United States C.4 4. Encouragement of more venue claims is neither an em sub-arg 543 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service A.1 1. Section 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) applies when a third-party sub-arg 1225 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service A.2 2. Petitioners’ asserted legal-interest limitation has sub-arg 1053 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service B.1 1. Clause (ii) creates an exception from Section 7609’ sub-arg 1489 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service B.2 2. Any overlap between Clauses (i) and (ii) would refl sub-arg ❝ 930 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service B.3 3. Section 7609(c)(2)(D) fits seamlessly with the rest sub-arg 345 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service C.1 1. Congress struck a balance between protecting privac sub-arg 527 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service C.2 2. Petitioners misconstrue the statutory history and p sub-arg 741 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service D D. Any Ambiguity Should Be Construed Against A Waiver sub-arg 346 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service E E. Petitioners’ Policy Arguments Are Misplaced sub-arg 1096 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service F F. If The Court Adopts Petitioners’ Legal-Interest Lim sub-arg 234 — candidate
Dubin v. United States A.1 1. Petitioner used Patient L’s means of identification sub-arg 1088 — candidate
Dubin v. United States A.2 2. Petitioner used Patient L’s means of identification sub-arg 938 — candidate
Dubin v. United States A.3 3. Petitioner’s reading adds elements that the statute sub-arg 1240 — candidate
Dubin v. United States B B. Application Of Section 1028A To Petitioner’s Conduc sub-arg 1192 — candidate
Dubin v. United States C C. Application Of Section 1028A To Petitioner’s Conduc sub-arg 694 — candidate
Dubin v. United States D D. Petitioner’s Assertion Of Statutory Overbreadth Is sub-arg 1458 — candidate
Dubin v. United States E E. Petitioner Fails To Identify Any Rule Of Statutory sub-arg 810 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I.A A. This Court’s Decisions Require That A Tribe Identif sub-arg 2067 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I.B B. The Requirement That A Tribe Identify A Specific Tr sub-arg 1489 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I.C.1 1. The court of appeals’ reliance on the Winters doctr sub-arg 956 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I.C.2 2. The 1868 Treaty’s farming provisions do not support sub-arg 518 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I.C.3 3. The government’s general control over the Lower Col sub-arg 646 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I.C.4 4. The environmental impact statement that the court o sub-arg 408 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation II.v v. CALIFORNIA sub-arg 712 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I.A A. Hardison Implicates This Court’s Near-Categorical P sub-arg 956 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I.B.1 1. Hardison has neither proved unworkable nor foreclos sub-arg ❝ 772 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I.B.2 2. Hardison’s underpinnings have not eroded sub-arg 375 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I.B.3 3. Petitioner’s remaining arguments lack merit sub-arg 705 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I.C C. When Properly Applied, Hardison’s “De Minimis Cost” sub-arg 2797 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I.D D. This Court Should Clarify Hardison By Reinforcing t sub-arg 621 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy II.A A. An Accommodation’s Effect On Other Employees May Im sub-arg 669 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy II.B B. Petitioner’s Contrary Arguments Are Unavailing sub-arg 487 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy III III. THE COURT SHOULD AFFIRM UNDER ANY UNDERSTANDING O sub-arg 1312 — candidate
United States v. Hansen U U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) AND (B)(i) ARE CONSTITUTIONAL sub-arg 170 — candidate
United States v. Hansen A A. Respondent’s Convictions Are Invalid Only If The St sub-arg 516 — candidate
United States v. Hansen B.1 1. The terms “encourage” and “induce” in a criminal la sub-arg ❝ 928 — candidate
United States v. Hansen B.2 2. Statutory history and context confirm that Section sub-arg 999 — candidate
United States v. Hansen B.3 3. The court of appeals’ contrary reading of the statu sub-arg ❝ 1908 — candidate
United States v. Hansen C.1 1. Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) covers substantial amount sub-arg 1109 — candidate
United States v. Hansen C.2 2. Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)’s application to speech i sub-arg 1143 — candidate
United States v. Hansen C.3 3. The Ninth Circuit’s overbreadth analysis was flawed sub-arg 1164 — candidate
United States v. Hansen C.4 4. As-applied challenges, not facial overbreadth claim sub-arg 180 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin A A. Congressional Abrogation Of Tribal Sovereign Immuni sub-arg ❝ 605 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin B.1 1. The statutory text unequivocally abrogates tribal s sub-arg ❝ 2942 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin B.2 2. The statutory structure confirms the unequivocal me sub-arg 2415 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin B.3 3. History does not undermine the unequivocal meaning sub-arg 546 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia A A. The Ordinary Meaning Of “Obstruction Of Justice” Do sub-arg 1236 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia B.1 1. Contemporaneous dictionaries sub-arg 252 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia B.2 2. Chapter 73 of the federal criminal code sub-arg 2215 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia B.3 3. The Model Penal Code sub-arg 980 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia B.4 4. State criminal codes sub-arg 619 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia B.5 5. The federal sentencing guidelines sub-arg 264 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia C C. At A Minimum, An Offense “Relating To” Obstruction sub-arg 334 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia D D. In Any Event, The Board’s Reasonable Rejection Of A sub-arg 1941 — candidate
Carnahan v. Maloney A A. Respondents’ Notice Of Dismissal Does Not Of Its Ow sub-arg 371 — candidate
Carnahan v. Maloney B B. Respondents’ Abandonment Of Their Claims Moots This sub-arg 711 — candidate
Lora v. United States A.1 1. Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s consecutive-sentencing m sub-arg ❝ 1002 — candidate
Lora v. United States A.2 2. The structural relationship between Sections 924(c) sub-arg 1325 — candidate
Lora v. United States A.3 3. This Court’s decisions support applying Section 924 sub-arg 291 — candidate
Lora v. United States B B. Double-Jeopardy Principles Support Applying Section sub-arg ❝ 1818 — candidate
Lora v. United States C C. The Statute’s History And Design Support Applying T sub-arg ❝ 1724 — candidate
Lora v. United States D.1 1. No clear-statement rule applies sub-arg 764 — candidate
Lora v. United States D.2 2. The canon against surplusage does not apply sub-arg 401 — candidate
Lora v. United States D.3 3. The rule of lenity does not apply sub-arg 269 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA A.1 1. The Appropriations Clause’s text does not limit Con sub-arg 1049 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA A.2 2. Longstanding practice confirms the natural reading sub-arg 1522 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA A.3 3. Precedent accords with constitutional text and hist sub-arg 368 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA A.4 4. Congress permissibly funded the CFPB through a stan sub-arg 406 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA B.1 1. The court of appeals’ decision has no support in te sub-arg 571 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA B.2 2. The CFPB’s funding statute accords with Congress’s sub-arg 1788 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA B.3 3. The court of appeals’ remaining arguments were flaw sub-arg 482 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA C.1 1. The court of appeals erred by failing to conduct a sub-arg 791 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA C.2 2. Respondents would not be entitled to retrospective sub-arg 1543 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown I.A A. The States Lack Standing sub-arg 2501 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown I.B B. Brown And Taylor Lack Standing sub-arg 745 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II.A.1 1. The plain text of the HEROES Act authorizes the pla sub-arg 722 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II.A.2 2. Respondents’ attempt to exclude discharge as a form sub-arg 1316 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II.A.3 3. Respondents’ remaining statutory arguments lack mer sub-arg ❝ 1067 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II.A.4 4. The major questions doctrine provides no reason to sub-arg 3050 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II.B B. The Plan Is Reasonable And Reasonably Explained sub-arg 1117 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II.C C. The Secretary’s Action Was Procedurally Proper sub-arg 639 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana I.A A. A Federal Policy’s Incidental Effects On A State Do sub-arg 1725 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana I.B B. A Plaintiff Lacks A Judicially Cognizable Interest sub-arg 540 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana I.C C. The District Court’s Standing Analysis Was Flawed sub-arg 1038 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana II.A A. The Guidelines Do Not Violate Sections 1226 And 123 sub-arg ❝ 2161 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana II.B B. The Guidelines Are Not Arbitrary And Capricious sub-arg 907 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana II.C C. The Guidelines Did Not Require Notice And Comment sub-arg 884 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana III.A A. Section 706(2) Does Not Authorize Vacatur sub-arg 1107 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana III.B B. Section 1252(f ) Bars Vacatur Of The Guidelines sub-arg 1424 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas A A. The Court Of Appeals Did Not Abuse Its Discretion I sub-arg 2246 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas B B. Petitioners’ Criticisms Of The Government’s Litigat sub-arg 2289 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas C.1 1. Petitioners have no cognizable legal interest in pe sub-arg ❝ 1227 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas C.2 2. Petitioners’ asserted interests are too indirect an sub-arg 800 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas D D. Petitioners Lack Article III Standing sub-arg 1041 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.A.1 1. Chevron provides a clear and appropriately bounded sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 1363 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.A.2 2. Chevron gives appropriate weight to agency expertis sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 1524 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.A.3 3. Chevron is rooted in a long tradition of deference sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 1391 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.B.1 1. Congress has legislated against the backdrop of Che sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 1106 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.B.2 2. Overruling Chevron would upset reliance interests sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 789 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.B.3 3. As refined by this Court, Chevron is a workable and sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 525 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.C.1 1. Chevron does not violate the separation of powers o sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 1013 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.C.2 2. Chevron is consistent with the APA sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 820 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.C.3 3. Petitioners’ policy concerns are unfounded and, in sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 176 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo II II. THE COURT SHOULD ALSO REJECT PETITIONERS’ ALTERNAT sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 715 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo III III. THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED sub-arg Natural Resources: ENRD, E 153 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States A A. The ACCA’s Text Points To The Time Of The State Cri sub-arg 947 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States B.1 1. The time-of-state-crime interpretation treats state sub-arg 662 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States B.2 2. The time-of-state-crime interpretation is consisten sub-arg 423 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States B.3 3. Petitioners’ approaches lack contextual support sub-arg 726 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States C.1 1. The time-of-state-crime interpretation of Section 9 sub-arg 988 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States C.2 2. The time-of-state-crime interpretation of the simil sub-arg ❝ 700 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States D D. A Time-Of-State-Crime Interpretation Ensures That S sub-arg 943 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States E E. Petitioners’ Remaining Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 1053 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland A A. Under Section 1252(a)(2), A Determination Is Unrevi sub-arg Administrative Law, Immigr 1025 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland B B. The Court’s Precedents Provide A Framework For Dist sub-arg Administrative Law, Immigr 1605 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland C C. A Determination That A Noncitizen Has Failed To Est sub-arg Administrative Law, Immigr 2112 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland D D. Plausible Legal Challenges To Hardship Determinatio sub-arg Administrative Law, Immigr 927 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland E.1 1. Guerrero-Lasprilla does not control this case sub-arg Administrative Law, Immigr 1563 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland E.2 2. The “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” de sub-arg Administrative Law, Immigr 1149 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland E.3 3. Canons of statutory construction do not call for a sub-arg Administrative Law, Immigr 548 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster A A. Because Section 1052(c) Is Viewpoint-Neutral, Tam A sub-arg Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 1142 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster B.1 1. Because Section 1052(c) is a viewpoint-neutral cond sub-arg Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 3249 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster B.2 2. Congress acted reasonably in denying the benefits o sub-arg Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 1372 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster C.1 1. The court of appeals erred in characterizing Sectio sub-arg Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 850 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster C.2 2. Because Section 1052(c) does not restrict speech, t sub-arg Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 969 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States A A. This Court’s Decision In Dolan Provides The Proper sub-arg 1049 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States B.1 1. Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) is not jurisdictional sub-arg 305 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States B.2 2. Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) sets forth a flexible time-relat sub-arg 2673 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States B.3 3. Petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) i sub-arg 972 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 1817 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States D D. The Judgment Should Be Affirmed sub-arg 772 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.A.1 1. The Amendment’s text and historical context show th sub-arg 769 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.A.2 2. Petitioners’ ratification-era sources do not suppor sub-arg 1755 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.B.1 1. Congress taxed undistributed earnings immediately a sub-arg 910 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.B.2 2. Congress continued to tax undistributed business ea sub-arg 1569 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.B.3 3. Petitioners’ congressional-practice argument lacks sub-arg 198 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.C.1 1. Macomber’s dictum erroneously implied that Congress sub-arg 568 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.C.2 2. This Court has abrogated Macomber’s dictum sub-arg 1414 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.D D. The MRT Taxes Income sub-arg ❝ 1531 — candidate
Moore v. United States II II. THE MRT IS INDEPENDENTLY CONSTITUTIONAL AS AN EXCI sub-arg 742 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz A.1 1. A cause of action is ineffective against the sovere sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 490 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz A.2 2. A waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 408 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz B.1 1. Congress has not waived sovereign immunity by direc sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 377 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz B.2 2. Congress has not waived sovereign immunity by expli sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 2604 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz B.3 3. Sections 1681n and 1681o do not even unambiguously sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1333 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision Produces Inexplicabl sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1680 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. I.A A. An Agency Adjudication Complies With Article III, A sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 814 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. I.B B. SEC Proceedings Seeking Civil Penalties For Violati sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 1210 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. I.C C. The Court of Appeals’ Seventh Amendment Holding Is sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 2010 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. II.A A. When The SEC Decides Whether To Bring Particular En sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 458 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. II.B B. In Authorizing The Commission To Choose Between Two sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 846 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. II.C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Nondelegation Holding Is Prem sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 1209 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.A A. Congress May Grant ALJs Tenure Protection sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 468 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.B.1 1. Congress has more leeway to grant tenure protection sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 1351 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.B.2 2. The SEC has adequate alternative mechanisms for con sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 860 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.B.3 3. The standard for removing ALJs is less demanding th sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 374 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.C.1 1. Congress may empower the MSPB to determine whether sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 473 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.C.2 2. An ALJ’s statutory entitlement to a hearing before sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 233 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.D D. Holding Section 7521 Unconstitutional As Applied To sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 315 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.E E. If This Court Finds Section 7521 Unconstitutional A sub-arg Securities Regulation (SEC 270 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough A.1 1. Petitioner could obtain Post-9/11 benefits only by sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 833 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough A.2 2. Petitioner’s election of Post-9/11 benefits under S sub-arg ❝ Civil Div. I: General (e.g 410 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough A.3 3. Petitioner could have avoided the limitation clause sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 355 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough B.1 1. Section 3327 does not distinguish between veterans sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1276 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough B.2 2. The 48-month aggregate cap imposed by 38 U.S.C. 369 sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1088 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough B.3 3. Petitioner’s speculation about congressional intent sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1023 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough B.4 4. Petitioner’s reliance on the veteran’s canon is mis sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 508 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough B.5 5. The VA’s interpretation of the statute is consisten sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 171 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi A.1 1. This Court’s precedents recognize that Congress may sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 361 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi A.2 2. History confirms that Congress may disarm persons w sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 1989 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi A.3 3. The Nation has a long tradition of disarming person sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 931 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi B.1 1. Individuals subject to domestic-violence protective sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 915 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi B.2 2. Section 922(g)(8)’s strict requirements confirm its sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 484 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi B.3 3. Restrictions like Section 922(g)(8) are commonplace sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 274 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi C.1 1. Congress may disarm persons subject to protective o sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 522 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi C.2 2. Congress may disarm persons subject to protective o sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 928 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi C.3 3. The Fifth Circuit misunderstood the historical inqu sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 639 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi C.4 4. Judge Ho’s criticisms of protective orders lack mer sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 522 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. I I. THE U.S. TRUSTEE HAS STANDING sub-arg Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 1313 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.A.1 1. Bankruptcy law generally addresses the relations be sub-arg Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 529 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.A.2 2. The residual equitable powers in Sections 105(a) an sub-arg Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 826 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.A.3 3. Nonconsensual third-party releases conflict with ot sub-arg Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 2152 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.A.4 4. Congress’s narrow allowance for asbestos trusts in sub-arg Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 493 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.B B. The Court Of Appeals Misread This Court’s Decision sub-arg Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 1509 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.C C. Constitutional Avoidance Counsels Against Nonconsen sub-arg Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 887 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.D D. Policy Considerations Support The U.S. Trustee’s Re sub-arg ❝ Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 1147 — candidate
Connelly v. United States A A. The Fair Market Value Of Michael’s Shares Was $5.3 sub-arg 880 — candidate
Connelly v. United States A.77 77.18% sub-arg 415 — candidate
Connelly v. United States A.77 77.18% sub-arg 245 — candidate
Connelly v. United States B.1 1. A redemption obligation does not diminish the value sub-arg 1148 — candidate
Connelly v. United States B.2 2. No willing buyer would have excluded $3 million in sub-arg 647 — candidate
Connelly v. United States B.3 3. No willing seller would have excluded $3 million in sub-arg 381 — candidate
Connelly v. United States B.4 4. The accounting standards that petitioner identifies sub-arg ❝ 1706 — candidate
Connelly v. United States C.1 1. The lower courts did not apply a “control premium” sub-arg 780 — candidate
Connelly v. United States C.2 2. Small-business owners have a variety of options to sub-arg 1096 — candidate
Connelly v. United States C.3 3. Any risk of double taxation is speculative and, in sub-arg 428 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States I.A A. Other Than The Fact Of A Prior Conviction, The Fift sub-arg Criminal (including Habeas 1191 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States I.B B. This Court’s Precedents Have Carefully Limited A Ju sub-arg Criminal (including Habeas 847 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States I.C C. Because Wooden Construed The ACCA’s DifferentOccasi sub-arg Criminal (including Habeas 960 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States I.D D. After Wooden, The Courts Of Appeals’ Rationales For sub-arg Criminal (including Habeas 946 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States II II. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE VAC sub-arg Criminal (including Habeas 526 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok A.1 1. The Rule’s treatment of weapon parts kits follows d sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1103 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok A.2 2. Neither the Fifth Circuit nor respondents have just sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 2057 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok B.1 1. A partially complete or nonfunctional frame or rece sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1159 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok B.2 2. The Fifth Circuit’s contrary interpretation lacks m sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1018 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok C C. The Fifth Circuit’s Interpretation Would Effectivel sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1077 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok D D. Neither The Rule Of Lenity Nor The Canon Of Constit sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1136 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.A A. A Claim Of Absolute Criminal Immunity For A Former sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 885 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.B B. History Supports The Conclusion That Former Preside sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 1064 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.C.1 1. The interest in applying federal criminal law to al sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 363 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.C.2 2. Robust safeguards protect against the risk of impro sub-arg ❝ Constitutional, Criminal ( 848 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.D D. Federal Criminal Law Applies To The President sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 1683 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.E E. The Impeachment Judgment Clause Does Not Make Senat sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 1673 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.F F. Petitioner’s Understanding Of Marbury And His Other sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 1628 — candidate
Trump v. United States II.A A. No Form Of Official Immunity Should Preclude Trial sub-arg Constitutional, Criminal ( 262 — candidate
Trump v. United States II.B B. Any Remand Should Permit The District Court To Make sub-arg ❝ Constitutional, Criminal ( 778 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System A A. The Occurrence Of Final Agency Action Triggers The sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 641 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System B B. Running The Statute Of Limitations From The Date Of sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 714 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System C.1 1. Petitioner’s reliance on the first sentence of Sect sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 816 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System C.2 2. Petitioner’s approach is inconsistent with the text sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 554 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System C.3 3. This Court’s precedents regarding accrual rules in sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1828 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System C.4 4. Petitioner’s remaining arguments lack merit sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1663 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System D D. Petitioner’s Approach Would Impose Substantial Burd sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1783 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.A.1 1. Chevron provides a clear and appropriately bounded sub-arg Administrative Law 1297 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.A.2 2. Chevron gives appropriate weight to agency expertis sub-arg Administrative Law 1556 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.A.3 3. Chevron is rooted in a long tradition of deference sub-arg Administrative Law 1483 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.B.1 1. Congress has legislated against the backdrop of Che sub-arg Administrative Law 693 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.B.2 2. Overruling Chevron would upset reliance interests sub-arg Administrative Law 740 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.B.3 3. As refined by this Court, Chevron is a workable and sub-arg Administrative Law 574 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.C.1 1. Chevron does not violate Article III or due process sub-arg Administrative Law 1235 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.C.2 2. Chevron is consistent with the APA sub-arg Administrative Law 1297 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce II II. THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED sub-arg Administrative Law 813 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill A A. A Rifle Equipped With A Bump Stock Fires Multiple S sub-arg 3905 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill B B. A Rifle Equipped With A Bump Stock Fires Multiple S sub-arg 2224 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill C C. This Court Should Reject Interpretations That Would sub-arg 1166 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill D D. The Fifth Circuit’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg 853 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA A.1 1. The text, context, and history of Section 7607(b)(1 sub-arg 967 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA A.2 2. Petitioners’ contrary approach to venue is inconsis sub-arg 2064 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA B.1 1. The disapproval action at issue here was based on d sub-arg 2632 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA B.2 2. Petitioners’ contrary reasoning would render the “n sub-arg 2244 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. I.A A. Personal Jurisdiction Exists Where An FSIA Exceptio sub-arg 469 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. I.B B. The FSIA’s Legislative History Provides No Basis Fo sub-arg 434 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. I.C C. The FSIA’s Exceptions To Foreign Sovereign Immunity sub-arg 570 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. II II. THIS COURT SHOULD REMAND FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS sub-arg 624 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. III.A A. Respondent Consented To Personal Jurisdiction In It sub-arg 699 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. III.B B. A Foreign State Is Not A “Person” Entitled To Fifth sub-arg 2180 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas I.A A. Under The Hobbs Act, Only Parties Aggrieved May Fil sub-arg 998 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas I.B B. A Nonparty To An Agency Proceeding May Not Obtain H sub-arg 1755 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas I.C C. Respondents Were Not “Part[ies],” Within The Meanin sub-arg 1058 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas II.A.1 1. The Atomic Energy Act’s plain text authorizes offsi sub-arg 1155 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas II.A.2 2. The Atomic Energy Act’s structure and purposes, and sub-arg 895 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas II.A.3 3. The Fifth Circuit’s and respondents’ contrary analy sub-arg 837 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas II.B B. The Policy Act Took As Its Starting Point, And Pres sub-arg 1510 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas II.C C. The Major Questions Doctrine Is Inapplicable sub-arg 358 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine I.A.1 1. Respondents cannot rely on statistics and must inst sub-arg 631 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine I.A.2 2. Respondents have not identified any member who face sub-arg 1285 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine I.A.3 3. Respondents’ remaining theories of injury likewise sub-arg 596 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine I.B B. Respondents Have Not Shown That Their Asserted Inju sub-arg 1027 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine I.C C. Respondents Lack Organizational Standing sub-arg 313 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine II.A A. FDA Lawfully Changed The Conditions Of Use In 2016 sub-arg 1773 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine II.B B. FDA Lawfully Changed The Adverse Event Reporting Re sub-arg 301 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine II.C C. FDA Lawfully Decided To Remove The In-Person Dispen sub-arg 547 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine III.A A. The District Court Erred In Relying On 5 U.S.C. 705 sub-arg 318 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine III.B B. The Balance Of The Equities And The Public Interest sub-arg 756 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney A.1 1. The statutory text requires a context-specific inqu sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 324 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney A.2 2. Equity embraces statutory considerations sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1396 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney A.3 3. History confirms that statutory context is relevant sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1609 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney A.4 4. The NLRA’s framework informs courts’ consideration sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 2418 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney B B. Either A Two-Factor Or Four-Factor Test May Reflect sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1469 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1022 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri I.A A. Individual Respondents Lack Standing sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 782 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri I.B B. State Respondents Lack Standing sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 623 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri II.A A. Government Speech Does Not Create State Action Unle sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1717 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri II.B B. The Government Did Not Compel The Challenged Conten sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1436 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri II.C.1 1. The Fifth Circuit erroneously applied a four-factor sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1726 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri II.C.2 2. The Fifth Circuit erred in finding significant enco sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 580 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri III III. THE LOWER COURTS’ INJUNCTION IS INEQUITABLE sub-arg Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1290 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States A.1 1. Intentionally causing death requires “physical forc sub-arg 850 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States A.2 2. Intentionally causing death requires the “use” of p sub-arg 2976 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States B B. Excluding “Omissions” Would Defeat The Design Of Se sub-arg 979 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States C.1 1. Physical force does not require external physical c sub-arg 653 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States C.2 2. Petitioner’s narrow interpretation of “use * * * ag sub-arg 1032 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States C.3 3. Petitioner’s view of Section 924(c)’s structure, pu sub-arg 1862 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States D D. The Rule Of Lenity Does Not Apply sub-arg 201 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States A.1 1. The object of petitioners’ scheme was to obtain mon sub-arg 479 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States A.2 2. Petitioners’ scheme sought the funds by means of ma sub-arg 1014 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States A.3 3. Petitioners intended their scheme to defraud sub-arg 185 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States B.1 1. Money or property can be “obtain[ed]” even if consi sub-arg 343 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States B.2 2. “[A]ny scheme or artifice to defraud” includes sche sub-arg 664 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States B.3 3. This Court has repeatedly and expressly made clear sub-arg 620 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States B.4 4. Petitioners’ net-pecuniary-loss theory lacks meanin sub-arg 796 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States C.1 1. The crime of false pretenses punished fraudulently sub-arg 1119 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States C.2 2. The common law of torts likewise generally imposed sub-arg 1888 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States C.3 3. At a minimum, petitioners have not shown a wellsett sub-arg 235 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States D D. Petitioners’ Proposed Departure From The Traditiona sub-arg 1551 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States E E. In Any Event, Petitioners’ Scheme Caused A Net Pecu sub-arg 246 — candidate
Rico v. United States A.1 1. A defendant must “be supervised” to satisfy a requi sub-arg 727 — candidate
Rico v. United States A.2 2. The continued applicability of release conditions d sub-arg 1322 — candidate
Rico v. United States B.1 1. Suspension of an absconder’s remaining term of impr sub-arg 1335 — candidate
Rico v. United States B.2 2. The supervised-release scheme incorporates fugitive sub-arg 965 — candidate
Rico v. United States B.3 3. Petitioner’s arguments for discarding fugitivetolli sub-arg 2518 — candidate
Rico v. United States C.1 1. Declining to credit unsupervised time to a term of sub-arg 598 — candidate
Rico v. United States C.2 2. Crediting a period of abscondment would result in u sub-arg 929 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump I.A A. Authority to “Regulate Importation” Includes Tariff sub-arg 2299 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump I.B B. The Major-Questions Doctrine Does Not Support Readi sub-arg 1488 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump I.C.1 1. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 does not displ sub-arg 498 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump I.C.2 2. The trafficking tariffs “deal with” the national em sub-arg 488 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump I.C.3 3. The President’s emergency and threat determinations sub-arg 602 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump II II. IEEPA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE sub-arg 880 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump III III. THE LEARNING RESOURCES DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURI sub-arg 602 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. A.1 1. A variety of voluntary actions can constitute conse sub-arg 1264 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. A.2 2. The Act does not offend traditional notions of fair sub-arg 1011 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. B.1 1. Congress enjoys greater flexibility than the States sub-arg 805 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. B.2 2. The Act is a permissible exercise of Congress’s pow sub-arg 1045 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. C.1 1. The court of appeals erroneously confined the Unite sub-arg 537 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. C.2 2. The Act is structured as an exchange of benefits sub-arg 760 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. C.3 3. The court of appeals’ remaining due process concern sub-arg 378 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. C.4 4. The court of appeals reviewed the Act’s constitutio sub-arg 464 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. D D. The Court Should Not Reach The Plaintiffs’ Broader sub-arg 370 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research I I. THIS CASE IS NOT MOOT sub-arg 1144 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.A.1 1. Congress may confer discretionary power upon an age sub-arg ❝ 1549 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.A.2 2. Section 254 provides intelligible principles to gui sub-arg ❝ 1617 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.A.3 3. The court of appeals understated the extent to whic sub-arg 814 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.A.4 4. The court of appeals erred in subjecting Section 25 sub-arg 1030 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.B.1 1. The Constitution permits the government to rely on sub-arg 780 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.B.2 2. The Administrator lawfully provides non-binding adv sub-arg 672 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.B.3 3. The court of appeals’ contrary reasoning lacks meri sub-arg 1063 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.C C. The Court Of Appeals’ “Combination” Theory Is Wrong sub-arg 559 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees A.1 1. Organizations whose members use government services sub-arg 1329 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees A.2 2. The district court lacked subject-matter jurisdicti sub-arg 552 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees A.3 3. Ordering the government to reinstate thousands of e sub-arg 1164 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees B.1 1. The issues raised by this case warrant this Court’s sub-arg 307 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees B.2 2. The district court’s injunction causes irreparable sub-arg 910 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees B.3 3. The balance of equities weighs strongly in favor of sub-arg 276 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees C C. This Court Should Grant An Administrative Stay sub-arg 136 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi A.1 1. The INA treats persecution determinations as predom sub-arg 1075 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi A.2 2. This Court has repeatedly recognized that asylumeli sub-arg 709 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi A.3 3. Determinations that past events rise to the level o sub-arg 1740 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi B.1 1. The INA’s text, as construed by this Court, does no sub-arg 1467 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi B.2 2. Whether an applicant has shown persecution is not a sub-arg 1679 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi B.3 3. Petitioners are wrong that substantial-evidence rev sub-arg 636 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi B.4 4. Policy considerations do not support petitioners’ r sub-arg 579 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n A.1 1. Courts order disgorgement to strip wrongdoers of th sub-arg 1339 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n A.2 2. “Unjust enrichment” resulting from a defendant’s wr sub-arg 723 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n B.1 1. Congress has spoken clearly when it has required ec sub-arg 795 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n B.2 2. Courts have not viewed pecuniary harm to investors sub-arg 679 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n C.1 1. The Court in Liu focused on specific statutory lang sub-arg 1103 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n C.2 2. Petitioner is wrong in arguing that the 2021 amendm sub-arg 1188 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n C.3 3. There is no basis for petitioner’s suggestion that sub-arg 335 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n C.4 4. The Court should respect and enforce Congress’s con sub-arg 463 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.U U.S.C. 1519 WAS TRIABLE IN THE VENUE OF THE INVESTIGAT sub-arg 60 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.A.1 1. The Constitution permits venue wherever a crime was sub-arg 766 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.A.2 2. Venue can be proper in a district where a crime’s e sub-arg 911 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.A.3 3. Petitioner’s contrary arguments are unsound sub-arg 770 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.B.1 1. Section 1519 defines an inchoate crime that can occ sub-arg 1718 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.B.2 2. Petitioner could constitutionally be tried in the d sub-arg 1580 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.B.3 3. Foreclosing trial in the venue of a targeted invest sub-arg 900 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States II II. EVEN UNDER PETITIONER’S APPROACH, HIS CRIME WAS CO sub-arg 406 — candidate
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 111 — candidate
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1418 — candidate
Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. - Amicus (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 328 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 53 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1459 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 795 — candidate
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Moreno - Merits VENUE FOR RESPONDENT’S OFFENSE OF USING OR CARRYING A facts 143 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 35 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2915 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 862 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) THE COURTS BELOW LACKED JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER RESPO facts 138 — candidate
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination - Brief (Merits) B Limit on injunctive relief (1) In general facts 702 — candidate
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. - Amicus (merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 143 — candidate
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. - Amicus (merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1282 — candidate
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. - Amicus (merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 702 — candidate
Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. - Amicus (merits) SECTION 1129(b) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE BARS CONFIRMATI facts 140 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 69 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2740 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 930 — candidate
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Merits argument ARGUMENT facts 303 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 100 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 869 — candidate
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n - Amicus (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 515 — candidate
Togo West v. Gibson - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Togo West v. Gibson - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1815 — candidate
Togo West v. Gibson - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 874 — candidate
Clinton v. Goldsmith - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 179 — candidate
Clinton v. Goldsmith - Merits A A. The Statutory Background facts 1021 — candidate
Clinton v. Goldsmith - Merits B B. The Current Controversy facts 1338 — candidate
Clinton v. Goldsmith - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 748 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 144 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2712 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 775 — candidate
NASA & NASA-OIG v. FLRA - Merits I I. AN OIG INVESTIGATOR IS NOT “A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE facts 192 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 93 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2469 — candidate
Lehman v. Zurko - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 928 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2657 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits summary_of_argument INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 390 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits THE APPLICATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1304 TO BROADCAST ADVERTI facts 138 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits I I. Substantial Government Interests Underlie Section facts 215 — candidate
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. FCC - Merits II II. Section 1304 Directly Advances The Government’s In facts 61 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 121 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3274 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 824 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits I I. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LACKS STANDING TO BRIN facts 66 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits II II. THE CENSUS ACT AUTHORIZES THE CENSUS BUREAU TO EMP facts 96 — candidate
U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives - Merits III III. THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT’S PLAN FOR THE 2000 CENSU facts 132 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3418 — candidate
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 830 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 90 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3353 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 638 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits APPELLEES LACK STANDING TO BRING THIS SUIT facts 100 — candidate
Clinton v. Glavin - Merits A tion to prepare his projections I do not mean to imply facts 687 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits A A. The Physical Resource facts 1126 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits B B. The Statutory Basis For The Competing Ownership Cla facts 960 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits C C. The Current Controversy facts 977 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 797 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits A A. The 1909 And 1910 Acts Do Not Unambiguously Convey facts 4846 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits B B. The Court Of Appeals Properly Invoked The Canon Of facts 871 — candidate
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe - Merits C C. The Solicitor Of The Interior Acted Properly In Wit facts 1073 — candidate
Drye v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 42 — candidate
Drye v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1070 — candidate
Drye v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 476 — candidate
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 64 — candidate
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3350 — candidate
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 585 — candidate
Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care - Merits RESPONDENT’S PRE-ENFORCEMENT JUDICIAL CHALLENGE TO THE facts 224 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 94 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3362 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 777 — candidate
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Merits THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION VALIDLY DETERMINED TH facts 266 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2381 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 949 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits I I. A DEFENDANT’S RULE-BASED OR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE facts 280 — candidate
United States v. Martinez-Salazar - Merits II II. IMPAIRMENTS OF A DEFENDANT’S EXERCISE OF PEREMPTOR facts 322 — candidate
Reno v. Condon - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 21 — candidate
Reno v. Condon - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3406 — candidate
Reno v. Condon - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1032 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 86 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2996 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1051 — candidate
Mitchell v. Helms - Merits I I. INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS MAY BE LENT T facts 602 — candidate
Baral v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Baral v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 676 — candidate
Baral v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 636 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 158 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3270 — candidate
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1075 — candidate
United States v. Johnson - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 44 — candidate
United States v. Johnson - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1348 — candidate
United States v. Johnson - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 514 — candidate
United States v. Johnson - Merits A DEFENDANT’S TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE BEGINS ON THE facts 95 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 65 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3306 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 422 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits CERTAIN OF THE WASHINGTON STATE RULES REGULATING TANKE facts 361 — candidate
US v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke - Merits B B. Interstate And International Tanker Operations Are facts 106 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2486 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1449 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits I I. PETITIONER IS A “PERSON” SUBJECT TO LIABILITY UNDER facts 307 — candidate
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States - Merits II II. PROTECT THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNME facts 299 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 93 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2644 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 533 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) THE COURT OF APPEALS DISREGARDED THE REQUIREMENT UNDER facts 233 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) C C. Courts Likewise Must Accord The Utmost Deference To facts 140 — candidate
United States v. Weatherhead - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The Utmost Deference Is Owed To The Executive’s Int facts 219 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 243 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3076 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 650 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits argument ARGUMENT facts 357 — candidate
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt - Merits I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY UPHELD THE 1995 “PREF facts 82 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 83 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1736 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT facts 600 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits argument ARGUMENT facts 97 — candidate
& 98-791: United States v. Florida Board of Regents - Merits II II. THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT AS APPLIE facts 163 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1288 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 834 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Merits II II. Feeling The Exterior Of Luggage Left Open To Publi facts 57 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2423 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 690 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY DECLINED TO ADDRESS PETI facts 412 — candidate
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel - Merits B to order consultative examinations to determine the ex facts 328 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 812 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 545 — candidate
Ohler v. United States - Merits B B. Nothing In The Text, History, Or Purposes Of The Fe facts 35 — candidate
Fischer v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Fischer v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1074 — candidate
Fischer v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 889 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 142 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1933 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 754 — candidate
Miller v. French - Merits THE AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISION DOES NOT DISPLACE A COURT facts 205 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 138 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits II II. Petitioners’ Leases facts 2858 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits IV IV. The Present Litigation facts 618 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits V V. The Pending CZMA Litigation facts 192 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits I I. facts 263 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits II II. The standards governing rescission and restitution facts 242 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits III III. Presumably recognizing that fact, petitioners did facts 132 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits IV IV. facts 204 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits I I. GENERAL STANDARDS GOVERNING RESTITUTION APPLY TO TH facts 94 — candidate
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States - Merits II II. THE OBPA DID NOT MATERIALLY BREACH OR REPUDIATE PE facts 156 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 62 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3875 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1199 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 13981 IS A VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’S POW facts 118 — candidate
United States v. Morrison - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 13981 IS A VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’S PO facts 159 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 35 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2600 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 982 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits A A. Even Before Section 3583(h) Was Enacted, District C facts 207 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits A.2 The text of Section 3583(e) a. facts 752 — candidate
Cornell Johnson v. United States - Merits B B. If The Court Concludes That Section 3583(e)(3) Did facts 149 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1524 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1301 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits I I. SECTION 3501 COULD BE VALIDLY APPLIED TO REQUIRE TH facts 122 — candidate
Dickerson v. United States - Merits II II. MIRANDA SHOULD NOT BE OVERRULED facts 485 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 20 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 973 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1010 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits I I. BANK LARCENY IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BA facts 129 — candidate
Carter v. United States - Merits I.A A. Bank Larceny Contains Statutory Elements That Bank facts 506 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 111 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1618 — candidate
Jones v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 869 — candidate
United States v. Velazquez - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 167 — candidate
United States v. Velazquez - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 4006 — candidate
United States v. Velazquez - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 630 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3344 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 920 — candidate
Castillo v. United States - Merits THE TYPE OF FIREARM USED IN AN OFFENSE UNDER FORMER SE facts 157 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 49 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) Statutory Background. This case concerns amend- facts 2236 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) Proceedings Below. facts 753 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1027 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) I I. CONGRESS HAS PRECLUDED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PETITIONE facts 342 — candidate
Calcano-Martinez v. INS - Brief (Merits) II II. THE PRECLUSION OF REVIEW OF PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE facts 109 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 148 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3204 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 882 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT RESPONSIBILI facts 595 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) A A. The Coal Act Provides That A Direct Successor In In facts 254 — candidate
Massanari v. Sigmon Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) B B. Even If The Coal Act Did Not Itself Affirmatively P facts 133 — candidate
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2444 — candidate
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1056 — candidate
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative - Brief (Merits) THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT FORECLOSES A “MEDICAL NE facts 171 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 104 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1299 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1030 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 76 — candidate
United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. WHEN PROFITABLE CORPORATIONS WITH PRODUCT LIABILIT facts 117 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 4603 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 556 — candidate
Idaho v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Congress Specifically Intended To Retain Federal Ow facts 176 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 42 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2696 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 692 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits II II. UNLIMITED COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY POLITICAL PA facts 495 — candidate
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee - Merits III III. POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE NO FAVORED CONSTITUTIONAL facts 112 — candidate
United States v. Cleveland Indians - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 55 — candidate
United States v. Cleveland Indians - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1484 — candidate
United States v. Cleveland Indians - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 913 — candidate
United States v. Cleveland Indians - Merits A A. The Plain Language Of The Relevant Statutes, Their facts 221 — candidate
United States v. United Foods. Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
United States v. United Foods. Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2094 — candidate
United States v. United Foods. Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 816 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 197 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3006 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1093 — candidate
Reno v. Ma - Merits SECTION 1231(a)(6) OF TITLE 8 AUTHORIZES THE ATTORNEY facts 419 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1084 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 798 — candidate
Chickasaw Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) SECTION 20(D) OF THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT CANN facts 581 — candidate
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC - Brief for Gov't Petitioners (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 126 — candidate
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC - Brief for Gov't Petitioners (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3191 — candidate
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC - Brief for Gov't Petitioners (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1244 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 209 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 4707 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 718 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 151 — candidate
New York v. FERC Enron Power Mktg. v. FERC - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COMMISSION CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE FEDERAL PO facts 48 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2129 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1011 — candidate
United States Postal Service v. Gregory - Brief (Merits) IN DISCIPLINING OR REMOVING A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE FOR MIS facts 344 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 67 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3158 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 762 — candidate
INS v. St. Cyr - Merits II II. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY NOT GRANT RELIEF FROM DEP facts 298 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 106 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3128 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1196 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Merits THE “APPEARS TO BE” AND “CONVEYS THE IMPRESSION” PROVI facts 277 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 131 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2244 — candidate
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1094 — candidate
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 56 — candidate
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1774 — candidate
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1156 — candidate
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - Brief (Merits) THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT APPLIES TO THE facts 469 — candidate
United States v. Vonn - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 109 — candidate
United States v. Vonn - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2168 — candidate
United States v. Vonn - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1408 — candidate
Original: Kansas v. Colorado - Brief On Exceptions to the Third Report of the Special Master question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 76 — candidate
Original: Kansas v. Colorado - Brief On Exceptions to the Third Report of the Special Master statement STATEMENT facts 2041 — candidate
Original: Kansas v. Colorado - Brief On Exceptions to the Third Report of the Special Master summary_of_argument INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 861 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 150 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2528 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 666 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 875 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) I I. THE CORPS HAS REASONABLY CONSTRUED THE TERM “WATERS facts 161 — candidate
Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Amicus (Merits) II II. USE OF PETITIONER’S WATERS BY MIGRATORY BIRDS FOR facts 375 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1154 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 325 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits BECAUSE IT COMBATS AN ENDURING LEGACY OF UNCONSTITUTIO facts 172 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A A. Congress Found, After Exhaustive Investigation, Amp facts 188 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2 2. Congress amassed voluminous evidence of historic an facts 612 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits A.2.b. The E (vii) Other Public Services: The scope of the testimon facts 60 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits B B. The Americans With Disabilities Act Is Reasonably T facts 205 — candidate
University of Alabama v. Garrett - Merits B.2 2. The Disabilities Act reaches no further than Congre facts 335 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 129 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.A A. Air Quality Criteria And Standards facts 460 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.B B. Implementation Of Air Quality Standards facts 684 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.A A. The Particulate Matter Rule facts 518 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.B B. The Ozone Rule facts 1121 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I.B I I I . THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW facts 673 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1021 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY APPLIED THE NONDEL facts 351 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW facts 450 — candidate
Browner v. American Trucking Associations - Merits III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPROPERLY RESTRICTED EPA’S facts 265 — candidate
Gitlitz v. Commissioner - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 145 — candidate
Gitlitz v. Commissioner - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1324 — candidate
Gitlitz v. Commissioner - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 567 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits I I. The Clean Air Act’s NAAQS Provisions facts 615 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits II II. The Particulate Matter and Ozone Rules facts 1124 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits III III. Proceedings Below facts 376 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 887 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits I I. CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED EPA TO ESTABLISH NAAQS BASED facts 247 — candidate
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Browner - Merits II II. ATA IS MISTAKEN IN INSISTING THAT THE CLEAN AIR AC facts 85 — candidate
United States v. The Mead Corp. - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
United States v. The Mead Corp. - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2217 — candidate
United States v. The Mead Corp. - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 906 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 56 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2320 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1461 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits TITLE III’S RESTRICTION ON THE USE AND DISCLOSURE OF I facts 327 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits I I. The Application of Title III To Disclosure Of Illeg facts 79 — candidate
Bartnicki v. Vopper and United States v. Vopper - Merits II II. Title III’s Restrictions Satisfy Intermediate Scru facts 77 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 137 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2326 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 807 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits I I. THE BOARD’S INTERPRETATION OF “INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT facts 509 — candidate
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. - Merits II II. THE BOARD’S RULE REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF THE B facts 151 — candidate
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2289 — candidate
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1369 — candidate
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. - Brief (Merits) I I. THE EEOC’S STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO OBTAIN VICTIM-SPE facts 163 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2992 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 844 — candidate
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 363 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 74 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1841 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 981 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 153 — candidate
Alexander v. Sandoval - Brief (Merits) II II. FEDERAL AGENCY REGULATIONS PROHIBITING RECIPIENTS facts 184 — candidate
United States v. Hatter - Merits question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 130 — candidate
United States v. Hatter - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2510 — candidate
United States v. Hatter - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1029 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 76 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1658 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 985 — candidate
Tuan Nguyen v. INS - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DISTINCTIONS IN SECTION 1409 DO NOT VIOLATE THE facts 106 — candidate
Lopez v. Davis - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 56 — candidate
Lopez v. Davis - Merits statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2609 — candidate
Lopez v. Davis - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 369 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 64 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3840 — candidate
Zadvydas v. Underdown and INS - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 955 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 28 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1071 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT facts 1028 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits PETITIONER’S SCHEME TO OBTAIN A VIDEO POKER LICENSE BY facts 149 — candidate
Cleveland v. United States - Merits II II. PETITIONER VIOLATED THE MAIL FRAUD STATUTE BY ENGA facts 207 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 30 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2235 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 943 — candidate
Kyllo v. United States - Merits THE USE OF A THERMAL IMAGER TO DETECT HEAT EMANATING F facts 314 — candidate
Glover v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
Glover v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1389 — candidate
Glover v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1198 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3035 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 700 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits I I. THAT THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED BY THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT facts 89 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits III III. THE MADERA CANAL CARRIES WATERS RELATED TO FLOOD facts 117 — candidate
Central Green Co. v. United States - Merits IV IV. PETITIONER’S PROPOSAL TO LIMIT SECTION 702c TO DAM facts 102 — candidate
Buford v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 55 — candidate
Buford v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 2160 — candidate
Buford v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 680 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1086 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 804 — candidate
Daniels v. United States - Merits A FEDERAL SENTENCE ENHANCED BY A PRIOR CONVICTION THAT facts 449 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1173 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 681 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 924(c)(1)(A) DEFINES A SINGLE FEDERAL CRIME facts 365 — candidate
Gallego v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ANY FACT TH facts 352 — candidate
United States v. Knights - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
United States v. Knights - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 1000 — candidate
United States v. Knights - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 762 — candidate
United States v. Knights - Merits A SEARCH TO INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BASED ON THE facts 300 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 115 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits statement STATEMENT facts 3503 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1267 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Merits THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT’S RELIANCE ON COMMUNIT facts 432 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1608 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 673 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 280 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 1367, AND SECTION 1367(d) IN PARTICULAR, SH facts 134 — candidate
Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minesota - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 1367(d) DOES NOT APPLY TO STATELAW CLAIMS facts 57 — candidate
United States v. Arvizu - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 73 — candidate
United States v. Arvizu - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2606 — candidate
United States v. Arvizu - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 578 — candidate
United States v. Arvizu - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDI facts 82 — candidate
Verizon Maryland Inc v. Public Service Commission and United States v. Public Service Commission - Merits Brief question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Verizon Maryland Inc v. Public Service Commission and United States v. Public Service Commission - Merits Brief statement STATEMENT facts 2838 — candidate
Verizon Maryland Inc v. Public Service Commission and United States v. Public Service Commission - Merits Brief summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 595 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 43 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1613 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 266 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE STRUCTURE, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND PURPOSE OF THE facts 322 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.1 1. The Structure and History of the Legislation. facts 73 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.2 2. The Bankruptcy Code Reflects Congress’s Intent that facts 1158 — candidate
Young v. United States - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Equitable Tolling is Appropriate Because of the Nat facts 463 — candidate
Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 85 — candidate
Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2657 — candidate
Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 993 — candidate
Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) THE BOARD’S LIMITED AWARD OF BACK PAY IN THIS CASE IS facts 144 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 106 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3212 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1013 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) SECTION 1437d(l)(6) REQUIRES THAT A PUBLIC HOUSING AUT facts 232 — candidate
HUD v. Rucker Oakland Housing Auth. v. Rucker - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 1437d(l)(6) BY ITS TERMS REQUIRES THAT PUBL facts 238 — candidate
United States v. Craft - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
United States v. Craft - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1700 — candidate
United States v. Craft - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 822 — candidate
United States v. Craft - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 20 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 240 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) A A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework facts 2068 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) B B. Proceedings in this Case facts 1701 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1304 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) I I. THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE DISABILITY facts 932 — candidate
Barnhart v. Walton - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 422(c)(2) DOES NOT PROVIDE A “TRIAL WORK” facts 158 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1585 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 623 — candidate
Dusenbery v. United States - Brief (on the merits) THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES A PRISONER WITH ADEQUATE NO facts 131 — candidate
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta - Merits Brief question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta - Merits Brief statement STATEMENT facts 5050 — candidate
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta - Merits Brief summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 748 — candidate
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta - Merits Brief II II. TEA-21 AND THE SECRETARY’S DBE REGULATIONS ARE NAR facts 298 — candidate
Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 123 — candidate
Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2029 — candidate
Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1649 — candidate
Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II II. THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT BAR SUITS AGAINST facts 244 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 125 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1306 — candidate
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 633 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 68 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1414 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1056 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) SECTION 10(b) AND RULE 10b-5 PROHIBIT A STOCKBROKER FR facts 483 — candidate
SEC v. Zandford - Brief (Merits) A A. A Stockbroker’s Fraudulent Sale Of Customer Securit facts 399 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 85 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2890 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1444 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) FDAMA’S LIMITED EXEMPTION FROM THE NEW DRUG APPROVAL R facts 588 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) A A. Substantial Governmental Interests Underlie Section facts 90 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 353a Directly And Materially Advances The G facts 272 — candidate
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 353a Does Not Burden An Excessive Amount Of facts 115 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 72 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2416 — candidate
Franconia v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 879 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2420 — candidate
FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Auth. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 737 — candidate
United States v. D'Italia - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
United States v. D'Italia - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1185 — candidate
United States v. D'Italia - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 996 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3145 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1031 — candidate
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) THE BOARD MAY FIND AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND IMPOSE facts 167 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1254 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 660 — candidate
United States v. Ruiz - Brief (Merits) RESPONDENT’S RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED BY THE GOVERNMEN facts 108 — candidate
United States v. Drayton - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 65 — candidate
United States v. Drayton - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2362 — candidate
United States v. Drayton - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 763 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3857 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1418 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) SECTION 525 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE DOES NOT DISPLACE T facts 852 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) I I. The Auction Payment Requirement Of FCC Licenses Is facts 88 — candidate
FCC v. NextWave and Artic Slope v. NextWave - Brief (Merits) II II. Section 525 of The Bankruptcy Code Does Not Supers facts 132 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1588 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1256 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE THAT EXCEEDS THE OTHER facts 325 — candidate
Cotton v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE SENTENCES IN THIS CASE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED UNDE facts 161 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 115 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1414 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 463 — candidate
United States v. Bean - Brief (Merits) A DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT A CO facts 155 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 168 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2261 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 573 — candidate
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. - Brief (Merits) THE COAL ACT DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE COMMISSIONER OF S facts 402 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 118 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2642 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 883 — candidate
Utah v. Evans - Brief (Merits) III III. THE CENSUS BUREAU’S USE OF IMPUTATION IS CONSISTE facts 107 — candidate
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 99 — candidate
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1912 — candidate
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 969 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 18 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 808 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 623 — candidate
Nguyen v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Designation of Chief Judge Munson To A Court Of facts 107 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 15 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1883 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 694 — candidate
United States v. Recio - Brief (Merits) A CONSPIRACY DOES NOT TERMINATE WHEN ITS OBJECTIVES HA facts 131 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 143 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2864 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 896 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. IN COMPUTING THE “COMBINED TAXABLE INCOME” FROM EXP facts 200 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Challenged Regulations Establish A Permissible facts 59 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C.F.R. 1.861-8 Directly Implements The General Provisi facts 168 — candidate
Boeing Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE CHALLENGED RESEARCH COST-ALLOCATION RULES DO N facts 139 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 247 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2822 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 878 — candidate
Pierce County v. Guillen - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THIS CONTROVE facts 113 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 220 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) A A. The Clean Water Act facts ❝ 1422 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) B B. The Corps’ And EPA’s Regulations facts 732 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) C C. The Facts Of This Case facts 1927 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 837 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 213 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) I I. PETITIONERS’ USE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT, WHICH FI facts 92 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) I.C “[t]he government’s statement that Akers involved “rip facts 232 — candidate
Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 404(f) DOES NOT EXEMPT PETITIONERS’ DEEP R facts 319 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 54 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1045 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 478 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) THE FAMILY-CARE PROVISION OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LE facts 304 — candidate
Nevada v. Hibbs - Brief (Merits) B.4 4. The FMLA Family-Care Provision Is Proper Section 5 facts 186 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 102 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3398 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1455 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 117 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1655 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 855 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) I I. MANDATORY DETENTION OF CRIMINAL ALIENS UNDER SECTIO facts 161 — candidate
Demore v. Kim - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 1226(C) DOES NOT IN ANY EVENT VIOLATE DUE facts 284 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1164 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1274 — candidate
Clay v. United States - Brief (Merits) WHEN A DEFENDANT DOES NOT PETITION THIS COURT FOR A WR facts 630 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 49 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2072 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 742 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. CLAIMS ASSERTING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL CO facts 115 — candidate
Massaro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Claims Asserting Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel facts 332 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1439 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 562 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I I. THE “LIMITED TIMES” REQUIREMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE C facts 499 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.E E. Applying The CTEA To Existing Works Is A Necessary facts 534 — candidate
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) II II. THE CTEA IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT facts 65 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 79 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1930 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 922 — candidate
SEC v. Edwards - Brief (Merits) RESPONDENT’S AGREEMENTS WITH INVESTORS WERE “INVESTMEN facts 394 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 75 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) District Benchmark Proposed Benchmark Proposed BVAP BV facts ❝ 15 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) U (U.S.) facts 97 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) U District Deviation From BRVP of BRVP of Ideal District facts ❝ 2333 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) U Dist. Benchmark Proposed Revised Benchmark Proposed Re facts 125 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 680 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT’S REQU facts 197 — candidate
Georgia v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) III III. THE QUESTION WHETHER PRIVATE PARTIES MAY INTERVEN facts 85 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) A A. The Statutory And Regulatory Framework facts 1404 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) B B. Proceedings In This Case facts 534 — candidate
National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 650 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 23 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2851 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 674 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) A A. The Supplemental Jurisdiction Provisions Of 28 U.S. facts 73 — candidate
Jinks v. Richland County - Brief (Merits) C C. Section 1367(d) Is Constitutional As Applied To Sta facts 191 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 165 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3249 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1025 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) I I. THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES AND ADDRESSES CONTAINED IN THE facts 183 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Release Of Individual Names And Addresses In The Mu facts 415 — candidate
ATF v. City of Chicago - Brief (Merits) II II. ATF’S WITHHOLDING POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO THE TRA facts 200 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 159 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2184 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1213 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) I I. CIPA DOES NOT INDUCE PUBLIC LIBRARIES TO VIOLATE AN facts 618 — candidate
United States v. American Library Association - Brief (Merits) II II. APPELLEES’ OTHER CHALLENGES DO NOT PROVIDE AN ALTE facts 55 — candidate
FEC v. Beaumont - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 62 — candidate
FEC v. Beaumont - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1512 — candidate
FEC v. Beaumont - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 593 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1192 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 624 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ RIGID CATEGORICAL SCHEME IS I facts 139 — candidate
United States v. Banks - Brief (Merits) II II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S EMPHASIS ON PROPERTY DAMAGE IS facts 72 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 35 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 992 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 408 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) BECAUSE IT COMBATS AN ENDURING PROBLEM OF UNCONSTITUTI facts 766 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B B. After An Exhaustive Investigation, Congress Found A facts 44 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) B.2 (xii) Other public services: The scope of the testimon facts 59 — candidate
Medical Board v. Hason - Brief (Merits) C C. The Disabilities Act Is Reasonably Tailored To Reme facts 164 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2282 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1048 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER THAT PETITIONER BE INVOLUNT facts 185 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC MED facts 196 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Government Has An Overriding Interest In Adjudi facts 491 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Involuntary Medication Is Justified When There Is A facts 51 — candidate
Sell v. United States - Brief (Merits) IV IV. THE ORDER FOR INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATION OF ANTIPS facts 69 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 60 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1840 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1010 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE COURT O facts 203 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED PETITIONER’ facts 100 — candidate
Castro v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The District Court’s Characterization Of Petitioner facts 152 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 195 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) A A. The Statutory And Regulatory Framework facts 1709 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) B B. Proceedings In This Case facts 1729 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 927 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) THE COMMISSIONER MAY DENY DISABILITY BENEFITS TO A CLA facts 914 — candidate
Barnhart v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) C C. The Commissioner’s Construction Is Compelled By The facts 69 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 818 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 968 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EXCLUSION OF facts 522 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) I I. MIRANDA IS AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE THAT PROTECTS A DEF facts 113 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Costs Of Extending The Miranda Rule Outside The facts 456 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) II.B B. There Are No Policy Justifications Sufficient To Ju facts 518 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. With Physical Evidence facts 555 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. A Deterrence Rationale Does Not Support Extending M facts 1476 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) II.B.3 3. The Exclusion Of Physical Evidence Does Not Serve T facts 422 — candidate
United States v. Patane - Brief (Merits) III III. OF THE MIRANDA RULE facts 713 — candidate
v. Mo. Municipal League - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
v. Mo. Municipal League - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1694 — candidate
v. Mo. Municipal League - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 762 — candidate
USPS v. Flamingo - Brief (merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 58 — candidate
USPS v. Flamingo - Brief (merits) statement STATEMENT facts 785 — candidate
USPS v. Flamingo - Brief (merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 311 — candidate
Doe v. Chao - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 37 — candidate
Doe v. Chao - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2020 — candidate
Doe v. Chao - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 612 — candidate
Doe v. Chao - Brief (Merits) THE PRIVACY ACT REQUIRES A PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE AC facts ❝ 271 — candidate
United States v. Galletti - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
United States v. Galletti - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1155 — candidate
United States v. Galletti - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 724 — candidate
United States v. Galletti - Brief (Merits) THE UNITED STATES MAY ENFORCE THE DERIVATIVE LIABILITY facts 93 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 172 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2331 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1098 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTED FROM PETITIONERS’ LAND W facts 376 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. WESTERN NUCLEAR RESOLVED THE QUESTION WHETHER GRAVE facts 479 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE AT ISSUE THERE RESERVE facts 126 — candidate
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. TO BE A RESERVED MINERAL, A SUBSTANCE NEED NOT HA facts 131 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 68 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) 1.b. Calif b. California law requires that each public elementary facts 92 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) 2 2. Respondent Michael Newdow (Newdow) is the non- facts 314 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) 3 3. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in pa facts 212 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) 4 4. While the case was pending on rehearing, the mother facts 209 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) 5.b. Judge b. Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Kleinfeld, Goul facts 85 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) I I. facts 155 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II II. Two decisions of this Court have said without qual facts 203 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) I I. RESPONDENT NEWDOW LACKS STANDING BECAUSE HE HAS NO facts 443 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Newdow Has Not Suffered The Invasion Of Any Legally facts 78 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.D D. The Pledge Of Allegiance, With Its Reference To God facts 280 — candidate
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits) II.D.2 The Pledge must be considered as a whole a. facts 454 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 154 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2855 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 646 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) II II. THE 30-DAY DEADLINE FOR ALLEGING A LACK OF SUBSTAN facts 146 — candidate
Scarborough v. Principi - Brief (Merits) III III. THE 30-DAY DEADLINE FOR ALLEGING A LACK OF SUBSTA facts 207 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 500 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 4818 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1516 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 298 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) B BCRA § 213’s provisions governing independent and coor facts 1061 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II II. THE ELECTIONEERING-COMMUNICATIONS PROVISIONS OF TI facts 185 — candidate
McConnell v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.B B. BCRA’s Source Limitation On Electioneering Communic facts 222 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 771 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 706 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) A GAS TANK SEARCH AT THE BORDER WITHOUT REASONABLE SUS facts 135 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) C C. A Suspicionless Gas Tank Search Is Consistent With facts 90 — candidate
United States v. Flores-Montano - Brief (Merits) E E. The Ninth Circuit’s Analysis Is Flawed facts 129 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1572 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1132 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Officers Routinely Explain The Nature Of The Charge facts 711 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Arresting Officer’s Words Were Not A Deliberate facts 575 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court Of Appeals Did Not Usurp The District Cou facts 167 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Oregon v. Elstad Provides The Appropriate Rule When facts 919 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Petitioner’s Claim That The Sixth Amendment Is Viol facts 1410 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Even Assuming A Sixth Amendment Violation, Suppress facts 1841 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D D. There Is No Other Reason For Applying A Broad Fruit facts 1126 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.E E. The Costs Of Excluding Subsequent Statements Made A facts 666 — candidate
Fellers v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. Petitioner’s Second Statement Is Admissible Even facts 1607 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 92 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3216 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1091 — candidate
Alaska v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II II. THE CLEAN AIR ACT AUTHORIZES EPA TO ISSUE A STOP-C facts 127 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 30 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 806 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 640 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) SECTION 330 DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE USE OF ESTATE FUNDS facts 76 — candidate
Lamie v. U.S. Trustee - Brief (Merits) C Section 309. Professional Fees. facts ❝ 2760 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2152 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 855 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PROPERLY WITHHELD PH facts 150 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) A.2 The privacy of surviving family members b. facts 1744 — candidate
OIC v. Favish - Brief (Merits) B B. Release Of The Photographs Of Foster’s Body At The facts 368 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2124 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 770 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) I I. Section 706(1) Authorizes A Court Only To Direct An facts 91 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Confining Section 706(1) to suits to compel discret facts 104 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II II. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Holding That Plainti facts 125 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Courts have no authority under Section 706(1) to re facts 293 — candidate
Norton v. SUWA - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Courts have no authority under Section 706(1) to co facts 161 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 95 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3317 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 838 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DISTRICT COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THE PROP facts 258 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) II II. THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF facts 218 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The President’s Exercise Of Commander-In-Chief Auth facts 158 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 122 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2085 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 619 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE PERMITS THE UNITED STATE facts 117 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Post-Duro Amendment To The Indian Civil Rights facts 119 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Congress Has Constitutional Authority To Restore As facts 295 — candidate
United States v. Lara - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Congress’s Recognition Of The Tribal Sovereign Powe facts 148 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2936 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 945 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) I I. A VIOLATION OF RULE 11 DOES NOT CONSTITUTE REVERSIB facts 215 — candidate
United States v. Benitez - Brief (Merits) I.A.2 2. The standards applied by the Ninth Circuit and the facts 231 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 15 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3516 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 798 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) I I. COPA IS NARROWLY TAILORED TO FURTHER THE GOVERNMENT facts 113 — candidate
Ashcroft v. ACLU - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT COPA IS facts 80 — candidate
Rasul v. Bush Al Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
Rasul v. Bush Al Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2414 — candidate
Rasul v. Bush Al Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 891 — candidate
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 116 — candidate
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1320 — candidate
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 898 — candidate
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALVAREZ-MACHAI facts 476 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 59 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 4075 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 764 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 647 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPLIED THE NATIONAL ENVIRO facts 372 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I.A A. FMCSA Was Not Required To Prepare An EIS Addressing facts 38 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The President’s Lifting Of The Trade Moratorium Is facts 149 — candidate
DOT v. Public Citizen - Brief (Merits) II II. FMCSA’S SAFETY RULEMAKINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE facts 161 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 54 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) 1 1. The Statutory Background facts 681 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) 2 2. The Present Controversy facts 1998 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 904 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) SECTION 666 IS A FACIALLY CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF C facts 458 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. Section 666, As Properly Construed By The Court of facts 104 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. Section 666 Is Necessary And Proper Legislation To facts 609 — candidate
Sabri v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Section 666 Is “Necessary” Federal Legislation To P facts 593 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 113 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) A A. The Federal Advisory Committee Act facts 344 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) B B. The National Energy Policy Development Group facts 486 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) C C. The Litigation Below facts 1074 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 966 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I I. The Construction Of FACA Adopted Below Has No Basis facts 276 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Decisions Below Expand FACA’s Requirements Beyo facts 146 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Approach Adopted Below Violates The Presumption facts 61 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Expansion Of FACA Adopted Below Violates The Co facts 153 — candidate
Cheney v. U.S. District Court - Brief (Merits) II II. The Court Of Appeals’ Jurisdictional Rulings Confl facts 405 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 103 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3400 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 772 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) RESPONDENT’S ARREST IN MEXICO NEITHER VIOLATES FEDERAL facts 757 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I I. Section 878 Permits DEA Agents To Arrest For Any Fe facts 294 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality Does No facts 375 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Brief (Merits) II II. The FTCA Exception For Claims Arising In A Foreign facts 124 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1036 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 775 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE SEARCH OF PETITIONER’S AUTOMOBILE WAS A LAWFUL INC facts 152 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Belton’s Bright-Line Rule Applies Without Regard To facts 51 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Belton’s Built-In Limitations Are Straightforward A facts 55 — candidate
Thornton v. United States - Brief (Merits) Unsound facts 926 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2243 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 965 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT HAMDI’S WARTI facts 181 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) I I. PETITIONERS’ LEGAL CHALLENGES TO HAMDI’S WARTIME DE facts 55 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II II. UNDER ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE STANDARD, T facts 29 — candidate
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) III III. THE NECESSARILY LIMITED SCOPE OF REVIEW IN THIS E facts 59 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) 1.b. The I b. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 facts 452 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) 1.c c. facts 431 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) 2.b. The U b. The United States has consistently maintained that facts 181 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) 2.c c. facts 355 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) 3 3. Procedural History facts 387 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 520 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) SECTION 1231(A)(6) OF TITLE 8 PERMITS THE CONTINUED EX facts 168 — candidate
Benitez v. Mata - Brief (Merits) B.3 Preserving the Secretary’s Detention Authority a. Serv facts 1044 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) 1.b. The I b. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 facts 451 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) 1.c c. facts 431 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) 2.b. The U b. The United States has consistently maintained that facts 580 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) 3 3. Procedural History facts 233 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 520 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) SECTION 1231(A)(6) OF TITLE 8 PERMITS THE CONTINUED EX facts 168 — candidate
Crawford v. Martinez - Brief (Merits) B.3 3. The Six-Month Cap Adopted in Zadvydas Does Not Appl facts 116 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2396 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 849 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I I. AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, THE CONTINGENT-FEE PORT facts 166 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) I.C C. Respondents’ Attempts To Distinguish The Tax Princi facts 370 — candidate
Commissioner v. Banks, II and Commissioner v. Banaitis - Brief (merits) II II. EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO LOOK TO THE MEANING OF S facts 96 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 199 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. General Provisions Of The ISDA facts 773 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Funding Of Self-Determination Contracts Under The I facts 627 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. IHS’s Allocation Of Appropriations Generally facts 615 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. IHS’s Funding For Contract Support Costs facts 817 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Factual Background facts 105 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B.1 1. Proceedings in Cherokee Nation, No. 02-1472 facts 324 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B.2 2. Proceedings in Thompson, No. 03-853 facts 523 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1216 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE SECRETARY WAS NOT REQUIRED BY THE INDIAN SELF-D facts 203 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Secretary Was Not Required To Pay The Tribes’ F facts 81 — candidate
Cherokee Nation v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The ISDA’s Availability Clause Contemplates More Th facts 95 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2084 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1065 — candidate
Veneman v. Livestock Mktg. Assoc. - Brief (Merits) I I. GENERIC ADVERTISING UNDER THE BEEF ACT IS GOVERNMEN facts 171 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 26 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 754 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 775 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. 195 facts 77 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1549 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 467 — candidate
Tenet v. Doe - Brief (Merits) E E. Reynolds Does Not Supersede Totten facts 101 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 43 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1936 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 762 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIES facts 212 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) C C. The CSA Constitutionally Includes Wholly Intrastate facts 592 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Raich - Brief (Merits) D D. The Ninth Circuit’s Reliance On Respondents’ Purpor facts 200 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 101 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Federal Reclamation Laws facts 723 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The California Central Valley Project facts 591 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Current Dispute facts 961 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 490 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONERS CANNOT SUE THE UNITED STATES FOR AN ALLEGE facts 131 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Congress Has Neither Authorized The Secretary Of Th facts 46 — candidate
Orff v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Neither The Westlands Contract Nor Any ExtraContrac facts 126 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 156 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) No. 03-184. The Eleventh Circuit, considering Bal- facts 290 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) No. 03-1034. The Seventh Circuit similarly affirmed facts 431 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 887 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Petitioners’ Claims Thus Reduce To An Impermissible facts 404 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) II II. THE TAX COURT’S PROCEDURES COMPORT WITH DUE PROCES facts 41 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Disclosure Of An “Original” STJ Report Is Unnecessa facts 71 — candidate
Ballard v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) III III. DISCLOSURE OF STJ REPORTS IS NOT COMPELLED BY THE facts 80 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 869 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 986 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY facts 64 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I I. PETITIONER’S VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. ANN. § 316.193 facts 234 — candidate
Leocal v. Ashcroft - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), The “Use” Of Physical Force facts 229 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) (A) Selection of country by alien facts ❝ 47 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) (B) Limitation on designation facts 63 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) (C) Disregarding designation facts ❝ 88 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) (D) Alternative country facts ❝ 94 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) (E) Additional removal countries facts ❝ 2053 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 549 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 267 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) II II. THE POLICY JUSTIFICATIONS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER I facts 179 — candidate
Jama v. Immigration and Naturalization Service - Brief (Merits) III III. THERE IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN ANY ESTABLISHED U facts 130 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 30 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1265 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 744 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE WIRE FRAUD STATUTE PROHIBITS THE USE OF INTERSTATE facts 114 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Revenue Rule Is Not Implicated By A Criminal Wi facts 239 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Policies That Underlie The Revenue Rule Do Not facts 31 — candidate
Pasquantino v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. A Scheme To Deprive A Foreign Government Of Tax Rev facts 183 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 63 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1306 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Natural Meaning Of “Any Court” Includes Foreign facts 1091 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 922(g)(1)’s Purpose Of Keeping Firearms Out facts 577 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Structure And Context Of The Gun Control Law Co facts ❝ 601 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Exclusion Of Certain Federal And State Business facts 1297 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. The Legislative History Of Section 922(g)(1) Suppor facts 1541 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) F.1 1. Section 922(g)(1) focuses on the fact of conviction facts 588 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) F.2 2. Congress was aware that foreign convictions often h facts 1308 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) F.3 3. No extensive review for fundamental fairness is req facts 492 — candidate
Small v. United States - Brief (Merits) F.4 4. facts 255 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 75 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3320 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1018 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE ARMED CAREER CRIMINAL ACT PERMITS DISTRICT COURTS facts 319 — candidate
Shepard v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Taylor Permits Courts To Consider Complaint Applica facts 324 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 54 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2206 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1154 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2255 WAS UNTIMELY facts 225 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 31 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1617 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 483 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I I. THE INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS PROVISION OF THE RELI facts 146 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.B B. RLUIPA Has The Permissible Effect Of Preventing Rel facts 40 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Establishment Clause Applies Equally To The Fed facts 84 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) I.C.3 3. The Establishment Clause protects religious liberty facts 115 — candidate
Cutter v. Wilkinson - Brief (Merits) II II. THE INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS PROVISION OF THE REL facts 424 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 118 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) 1 1. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines system facts 1270 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) 2 2. Constitutional challenges to the Guidelines facts 776 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) 3 3. The present controversy facts 818 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 505 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) I . B LA K E LY DO ES NO T AP P LY TO TH E UN IT ED ST facts 223 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) B B. A Fact That Increases A Defendant’s Offense Level U facts 33 — candidate
United States v. Booker - Brief (Merits) II II. IF BLAKELY IS HELD TO APPLY TO THE GUIDELINES, THE facts 350 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 42 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2755 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 923 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COMMISSION REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT CABLE MODE facts 145 — candidate
National Cable & Tellcom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Servcies - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Commission Reasonably Construed The Statutory T facts 92 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 116 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3700 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 738 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON facts 152 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Petitioner’s Novel Definition Of The Term “Corruptl facts 63 — candidate
Arthur Anderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY O facts 93 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 60 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1634 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 789 — candidate
Dodd v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Although Interpretive Issues Do Arise In Construing facts 149 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2567 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 976 — candidate
Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Attorney General’s Conclusion That Facilitating facts 113 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 65 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) statement STATEMENT facts 1719 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 753 — candidate
No. Abdel Tum v. Barber Foods - Amicus (Merit) I I. THE POST-DONNING AND PRE-DOFFING WALKING TIME AT IS facts 144 — candidate
United States v. Olson - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
United States v. Olson - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2092 — candidate
United States v. Olson - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 976 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 53 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) 1.b. Debt b. Debt Collection By The Federal Government facts 1220 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) 2 2. Factual Background facts 342 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) 3 3. Proceedings Below facts 378 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 666 — candidate
No.Lockhart v. United States - Brief (Merits) NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO THE COLLECTION OF facts 45 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3164 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 586 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE CORPS AND EPA HAVE REASONABLY DEFINED THE CWA T facts 408 — candidate
Rapanos v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. CONGRESS’S GRANT OF FEDERAL REGULATORY JURISDICTIO facts 158 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 64 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1759 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 310 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) CONGRESS’S PROHIBITION AGAINST THE IMPORTATION, DISTRI facts 203 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.3 Sixth, Congress enacted RFRA against a backdrop of facts 289 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.5 5. Congress’s Findings Merit Substantial Deference a. facts 822 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) B.5.b. Congr (2) Hoasca’s potential for abuse and diversion: facts 1034 — candidate
Gonzales v. O Centro - Brief (Merits) C C. The United States Has A Compelling Interest In Comp facts 136 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 188 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3060 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 625 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) I I. THE CSRA PROVIDES THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES FOR THE EM facts 236 — candidate
Whitman v. DOT - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS MUST BE RAISED facts 402 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 100 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2329 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1101 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) B B. The Solomon Amendment Does Not Violate The First Am facts 301 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) C C. The Solomon Amendment Does Not Implicate The Compel facts 34 — candidate
Rumsfeld v. FAIR - Brief (Merits) D D. The Solomon Amendment Is Not Subject To, But In Any facts 110 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) statement STATEMENT facts 1755 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 513 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IS VAL facts 325 — candidate
United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia - Brief (Merits in No. 04-1203) C C. Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act Is facts 177 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 188 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1857 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1117 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 409 — candidate
Will v. Hallock - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Holding That A Dismissal Base facts 139 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1325 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1316 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) SECTION 1231(a)(5) GOVERNS THE REMOVAL OF AN ILLEGAL R facts 209 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) A A. The Terms Of Section 1231(a)(5) And Related Statuto facts 162 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) B B. Application Of Section 1231(a)(5) To Aliens Whose I facts 81 — candidate
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales - Brief (Merits) B.2 2. Applying Section 1231(a)(5) to pre-IIRIRA illegal r facts 162 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 82 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2892 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 599 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) THE CORPS HAS ACTED LAWFULLY IN DEFINING THE TERM “ADJ facts 289 — candidate
Carabell v. United States Army Corp of Eng'rs - Brief (Merits) A A. The Corps’ Assertion Of CWA Permitting Authority Ov facts 355 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 58 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1983 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 830 — candidate
United States v. Grubbs - Brief (Merits) A SEARCH UNDER AN ANTICIPATORY WARRANT IS CONSTITUTION facts 60 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3006 — candidate
Hartman v. Moore - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1045 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 26 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3042 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 751 — candidate
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - Brief (Merits) THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY REJECTED APPELLANT’S AS-A facts 176 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 749 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 482 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT EXCEPTION FOR “ANY CLAIM A facts 459 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.1 1. The statutory text does not distinguish between typ facts 117 — candidate
Dolan v. USPS - Brief (Merits) C.2 2. Petitioner’s own arguments support the exemption of facts 296 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 107 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1609 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1089 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 403 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II II. THE PRESIDENT HAS AMPLE AUTHORITY TO CONVENE MILIT facts 50 — candidate
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Petitioner’s Case-Specific And Treaty-Based Objecti facts 62 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 28 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1550 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 847 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) THE DENIAL OF THE QUALIFIED RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY facts 116 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) B B. A Defendant Who Is Denied His Counsel Of Choice Mus facts 144 — candidate
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Holding That An Erron facts 80 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 150 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2244 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 963 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003 IS CONSTITU facts 367 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I I. THE ABSENCE OF A HEALTH EXCEPTION DOES NOT RENDER T facts 197 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) I.B B. When Analyzed Under The Proper Standard, The Record facts 100 — candidate
Gonzales v. Carhart - Brief (Merits) II II. THE ACT IS NEITHER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERBROAD NO facts 126 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2337 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 767 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THE SPEEDY facts 161 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. A DEFENDANT CANNOT CHALLENGE DELAY THAT HE SOUGHT A facts 85 — candidate
Zedner v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. A DEFENDANT CANNOT SHOW REVERSIBLE ERROR FROM THE facts 192 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 64 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2047 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 903 — candidate
Dixon v. United States - Brief (Merits) A DEFENDANT SHOULD BEAR THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION ON TH facts 356 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 97 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1737 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 463 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 359 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) I I. PETITIONERS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING facts 461 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) II II. EPA REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CAA DOES NOT AUT facts 737 — candidate
Massachusetts v. EPA - Brief (Merits) III III. EPA REASONABLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN DETERM facts 192 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 31 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3317 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 920 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) BECAUSE RESPONDENT STONE IS AN “ORIGINAL SOURCE” OF TH facts 591 — candidate
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Any Clarification Or Refinement Of The FCA Allegati facts 130 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 149 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2290 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 963 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003 IS CONSTITU facts 249 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) I I. THE ABSENCE OF A HEALTH EXCEPTION DOES NOT RENDER T facts 207 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) I.B B. When Analyzed Under The Proper Standard, The Record facts 114 — candidate
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. (Merits) II II. THE ACT IS NEITHER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERBROAD NO facts 48 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 146 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2739 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1206 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) THE SECRETARY’S METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A facts 147 — candidate
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Educ. - Brief (Merits) A A. Congress Has Supported, Rather Than Foreclosed, The facts 74 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1228 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 565 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) AN ACTION UNDER 26 U.S.C. 7426 IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY facts 65 — candidate
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 7426(a)(1) Is A Precisely Drawn, Specific R facts 64 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 27 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1233 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 758 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF A “THEFT OFFENSE,” AND THU facts 96 — candidate
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez - Brief (Merits) A A. The Generic Definition Of “Theft Offense” Includes facts 241 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 132 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1587 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 584 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. A STATE-LAW DRUG CRIME THAT IS BOTH A FELONY AND P facts 249 — candidate
Lopez v. Gonzales; Toledo-Flores v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.D D. A State-Law Felony Offense Is A Drug-Trafficking Cr facts 89 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 169 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2229 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1263 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE facts 105 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) II II. UNDER THE WESTFALL ACT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NEED facts 171 — candidate
Osborn v. Haley - Brief (Merits) III III. BECAUSE CONGRESS SPECIFIED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENE facts 108 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1944 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 888 — candidate
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton - Brief (Merits) THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD OF 28 U.S.C. 2415(a) DOES NOT G facts ❝ 371 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 189 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2927 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1360 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Claim That The PSD Regulations Must Be Consiste facts 306 — candidate
No. Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp. - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EPA LAC facts 171 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2502 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 787 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED BURGLARY OF A DW facts 356 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Attempted Burglary Of A Dwelling Under Florida Law facts 63 — candidate
James v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The ACCA’s Plain Language Does Not Exclude Attempts facts 57 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 18 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1588 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 591 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) THE OMISSION OF AN ELEMENT OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE FROM facts 340 — candidate
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - Brief (Merits) F F. The Omission Of The “Overt Act” Element From Respon facts 16 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1976 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 821 — candidate
United States v. Santos - Brief (Merits) THE TERM “PROCEEDS” IN THE MONEY LAUNDERING STATUTE ME facts 91 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 53 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1462 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 675 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SEPARATION O facts 288 — candidate
Hein v. Freedom from Religious Foud., Inc. - Brief (Merits) C C. Respondents’ Challenge To The Speeches, Meetings, A facts 83 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 192 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2965 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1022 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REJECTING PETITIONERS facts 281 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Fifth Amendment, Tucker Act, And APA Preclude A facts 278 — candidate
Wilkie v. Robbins - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Respondent Has Not Alleged The Violation Of Any Rig facts 133 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 136 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3212 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 647 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Section 7(a)(2) Of The ESA Does Not Impliedly Repea facts 95 — candidate
National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife - Brief (Merits) II II. EPA’S APPROVAL OF ARIZONA’S TRANSFER APPLICATION W facts 357 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 57 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3009 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 874 — candidate
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) AN EMPLOYER IS LIABLE UNDER TITLE VII WHEN A SUPERVISO facts 184 — candidate
Momah v. Dominguez - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
Momah v. Dominguez - Brief (Merits) ARUGMENT facts 595 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1930 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 778 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) SECTION 6404(h) OF THE TAX CODE PROVIDES THE EXCLUSIVE facts 109 — candidate
Hinck v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The Fifth Circuit’s Decision In Beall Is Incorrect facts 331 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2002 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 841 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. APPELLATE REVIEW FOR REASONABLENESS SHOULD REQUIRE facts 293 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Proportionality Review, Using The Guidelines As A B facts 109 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. Proportionality Review Is Consistent With The SRA A facts 37 — candidate
Claiborne v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONER’S SENTENCE WAS UNREASONABLE facts 82 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 72 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) A A. The CERCLA Liability Scheme facts 969 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) B B. The Facts and Proceedings Below facts 948 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 957 — candidate
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. - Brief (Merits) SECTION 107(a) OF CERCLA DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ONE POTENT facts 83 — candidate
Watson v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 30 — candidate
Watson v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1118 — candidate
Watson v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 683 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2036 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 624 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. A SENTENCE WITHIN A PROPERLY CALCULATED GUIDELINES facts 188 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. A Presumption Of Reasonableness For Guidelines Sent facts 148 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) Guidelines Range facts 674 — candidate
Rita v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. PETITIONER’S SENTENCE, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GUIDE facts 77 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 75 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2478 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 972 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) CONGRESS’S PROHIBITION OF OFFERING OR SOLICITING WHAT facts 98 — candidate
United States v. Williams - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 2252A(a)(3)(B) CAPTURES NO PROTECTED SPEECH facts 323 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 4271 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 949 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II II. BCRA § 203 IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THE THR facts 967 — candidate
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc./ McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The District Court Erroneously Refused To Consider facts 783 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 54 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2480 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 940 — candidate
Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 122 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1306 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 872 — candidate
Burgess v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S PRIOR CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF COCAIN facts 105 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 22 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1495 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1240 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S FELONY CONVICTIONS FOR DRIVING UNDER THE facts 127 — candidate
Begay v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Petitioner’s Interpretation Of The ACCA Is Contrary facts 216 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1000 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1328 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY REVIEWED PETITIONER facts 210 — candidate
Gonzalez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Any Error In Having The Magistrate Judge Preside Ov facts 150 — candidate
John R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 37 — candidate
John R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1689 — candidate
John R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 769 — candidate
John R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) SECTION 2501’S BAR TO CLAIMS FILED MORE THAN SIX YEARS facts 157 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3075 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 938 — candidate
Dada v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) THE FILING OF A MOTION TO REOPEN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS D facts 190 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 121 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1995 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 716 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 219 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. As Aliens Held Outside The Sovereign Territory Of T facts 121 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Suspension Clause Does Not Entitle Petitioners facts 181 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The DTA Is An Adequate Substitute For Habeas Corpus facts 203 — candidate
Boumediene v. Bush / Odah v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONERS’ DETENTION IS LAWFUL facts 112 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1507 — candidate
Knight v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 947 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 31 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1963 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1058 — candidate
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - Brief (Merits) THE ADEA DOES NOT ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST facts 326 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 73 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2126 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 746 — candidate
Cuellar v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S ATTEMPTED CROSS-BORDER TRANSPORTATION OF facts 163 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 71 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3978 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 561 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) A A. The Commission Reasonably Interpreted The Federal P facts 174 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Creating New “Prerequ facts 454 — candidate
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 - Brief (Merits) C C. The Commission Properly Applied The Public Interest facts 105 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2438 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 813 — candidate
Boulware v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE DIVERSION OF CORPORATE FUNDS TO A SHAREHOLDER OF A facts 303 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 106 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1839 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 903 — candidate
United States v. Rodriquez - Brief (Merits) RESPONDENT’S DRUG-TRAFFICKING OFFENSES QUALIFIED AS “S facts 170 — candidate
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 36 — candidate
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1201 — candidate
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT facts 1111 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 44 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) A A. Background facts 2009 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) B B. Facts and Proceedings Below facts 1498 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 817 — candidate
Kimbrough v. United States -Brief (Merits) A DISTRICT COURT MAY NOT REDUCE A DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE facts 128 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 63 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1062 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 968 — candidate
Logan v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE RESTORATION-OF-RIGHTS EXEMPTION APPLIES ONLY WHEN facts 302 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 43 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2610 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1179 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. RULE 32 REQUIRES A DISTRICT COURT TO PROVIDE NOTICE facts 85 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.F F. The Arguments For Limiting Rule 32 To Guidelines De facts 32 — candidate
Irizarry v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE BEFORE facts 126 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1644 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1002 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S PROBATION SENTENCE WAS UNREASONABLE BECAU facts 203 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW IS CONSISTENT WITH UNITED ST facts 475 — candidate
Gall v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Proportionality Review Properly Implements The SRA facts 104 — candidate
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 24 — candidate
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 939 — candidate
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 615 — candidate
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons - Brief (Merits) BUREAU OF PRISONS OFFICIALS CONSTITUTE “LAW ENFORCEMEN facts 138 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 75 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1373 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1265 — candidate
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. - Brief (Merits) THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ERRED IN ALLOWING RESPONDENTS TO C facts 245 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 142 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2984 — candidate
Davis v. FEC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1127 — candidate
Greenlaw v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
Greenlaw v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1434 — candidate
Greenlaw v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 804 — candidate
Greenlaw v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUA SPONTE ORDERING THE facts 97 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3001 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1111 — candidate
Taylor v. Sturgell - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT PETITIONER facts 667 — candidate
Geren v. Omar - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 187 — candidate
Geren v. Omar - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2649 — candidate
Geren v. Omar - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1183 — candidate
Geren v. Omar - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 174 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 58 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1671 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 616 — candidate
United States v. Ressam - Brief (Merits) IN A PROSECUTION BROUGHT UNDER 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(2), TH facts 286 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 111 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1797 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 869 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 434 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) II II. RESPONDENTS FAILED TO ESTABLISH STANDING TO CHALLE facts 229 — candidate
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. - Brief (Merits) IV IV. THE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION WAS IMPROPER facts 116 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3879 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 864 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) A A. The FCC Satisfied The Requirements Of The APA Becau facts 259 — candidate
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.- Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Substituting Its Judg facts 227 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd statement STATEMENT facts 1368 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1108 — candidate
\OSG\Desktop - files in progress -- for DTP use only\Desktop Finals - WP\Hayes 07-608.wpd RESPONDENT’S MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION FOR BATTERY OF HIS facts 163 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1318 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 934 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S CONVICTION FOR ESCAPE BY KNOWINGLY FAILIN facts 271 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Failure-To-Report Escape Presents A Serious Potenti facts 378 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Failure-To-Report Escape Is Purposeful, Violent, An facts 326 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Courts May Consider Potential Violence During Recap facts 33 — candidate
Chambers v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. The ACCA’s Residual Clause Is Not Limited To Proper facts 37 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 99 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2426 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1016 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Brief (Merits) I I. RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO facts 174 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 44 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1286 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1293 — candidate
Corley v. United States - Brief (Merits) EXCLUSION OF A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION IS NOT AN AUTHORIZ facts 199 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 143 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 4135 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1057 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REASONABLY DETERMINED THAT facts 112 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) B B. Commerce Reasonably Concluded That The Antidumping- facts 350 — candidate
United States v. Eurodif S.A. / USEC, Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. - Brief (Merits) C C. Additional Reasons Identified By Commerce After Rev facts 152 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 87 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1666 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 659 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) A A. Like The Corresponding Provision Of The APA, Sectio facts 106 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Creating A Unique Rul facts 138 — candidate
Peake v. Sanders - Brief (Merits) C C. A Presumption Of Prejudice From VCAA Notice Errors facts 278 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 180 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3862 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1034 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 185 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) I I. THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PERMISSIBLY AU facts 48 — candidate
Winter v. NRDC - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS INC facts 162 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2314 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 970 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S RICO CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAU facts 185 — candidate
Boyle v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. AN ILLICIT RICO ENTERPRISE NEED NOT HAVE AN ASCERTA facts 78 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 227 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 4412 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1210 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ RULING, EVEN IF NOT COMPLETE facts 117 — candidate
United States v. Navajo Nation - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Neither The Rehabilitation Act Nor SMCRA Furnishes facts 56 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 99 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2743 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1102 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. SHELL IS LIABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF CERCLA BECAUSE I facts 118 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Shell Identifies No Sound Basis For Limiting Arrang facts 31 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO HOLD PETIT facts 130 — candidate
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States / Shell Oil Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The District Court’s Unsubstantiated Assumptions An facts 150 — candidate
Negusie v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 81 — candidate
Negusie v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1664 — candidate
Negusie v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 645 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1520 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 657 — candidate
Herring v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT SUPPRESSION I facts 109 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 84 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2031 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 643 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I I. THE SECRETARY HAS AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE facts 132 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Because The Act Does Not Unambiguously Answer The Q facts 86 — candidate
Carcieri v. Kempthorne - Brief (Merits) II II. THE RHODE ISLAND INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT NEIT facts 300 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 37 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2053 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 891 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY CONSIDER COSTS facts 457 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) B B. The Statutory Structure, Context, And History Confi facts 283 — candidate
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - Brief (Merits) E E. EPA’s Consideration Of Costs And Benefits In The Ru facts 162 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 27 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2561 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 921 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 164 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS FOR EXEMPTING PLEABREACH CL facts 130 — candidate
Puckett v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. THE GOVERNMENT’S BREACH OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT IN facts 205 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3020 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 778 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) THE PROPOSED DISCHARGES AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE ARE GOVE facts 278 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) A A. A Discharge Of Fill Material Is Subject To Section facts 116 — candidate
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council / Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council -Brief (Merits) B B. The Corps And EPA Properly Concluded That The Propo facts 64 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 77 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 519 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 739 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) SECTION 1028A(a)(1) DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO facts 385 — candidate
Flores-Figueroa v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Statutory Purpose Counsels Against Requiring The Go facts 121 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1057 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 612 — candidate
Abuelhawa v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Language Of Section 843(b) Applies To The facts 217 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 74 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2112 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 845 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I I. BCRA’S RESTRICTIONS ON CORPORATE FINANCING OF ELECT facts 54 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) I.C C. There Is No Other Constitutional Basis For Exemptin facts 43 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II II. BCRA’S REPORTING AND DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS ARE C facts 138 — candidate
Citizens United v. FEC - Brief (Merits) II.B B. As Applied To Advertisements That Fall Within BCRA’ facts 238 — candidate
United States v. Denedo - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
United States v. Denedo - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2103 — candidate
United States v. Denedo - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 648 — candidate
United States v. Denedo - Brief (Merits) THE MILITARY APPELLATE COURTS LACK JURISDICTION TO ADJ facts 147 — candidate
United States v. Denedo - Brief (Merits) A A. Coram Nobis Review Of A Final Court-Martial Judgmen facts 78 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 102 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1130 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 838 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I I. ONLY THE STATE OF TEXAS OR TRAVIS COUNTY MAY APPLY facts 39 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II II. AS THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD, SECTION 5 OF TH facts 302 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Section 5’s Preclearance Requirement Is An Appropri facts 453 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. Section 5’s remedial nature is demonstrated by its facts 95 — candidate
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. Congress amassed an extensive record demonstrating facts 404 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 59 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1748 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1037 — candidate
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n - Brief (Merits) OCC’S INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “VISITORIAL POWERS” I facts 400 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 193 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2195 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 589 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) I I. RESPONDENT LACKS STANDING UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT C facts 241 — candidate
Salazar v. Buono - Brief (Merits) III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ REASONS FOR ENJOINING THE L facts 262 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 80 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2164 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 774 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A FRAUD CONSPIRACY IN WHICH THE VICTIMS LOST MORE THAN facts 374 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text And Structure Of Section 1101(a)(43) Demon facts 77 — candidate
Nijhawan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) C C. Because The Amount Of Loss Need Not Be An Element O facts 207 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 90 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1160 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1047 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) SECTION 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) PROVIDES FOR A SENTENCING EN facts 103 — candidate
Dean v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. No Presumption Requires Reading A Separate Mens Rea facts 120 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3186 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1103 — candidate
Yeager v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE JURY’S ACQUITTALS AT PETITIONER’S FIRST TRIAL DO N facts 185 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1953 — candidate
Nken v. Mukasey - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 609 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 105 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1646 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 654 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 48 DOES NOT REGULATE PROTECTED SPEECH facts 96 — candidate
United States v. Stevens - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 48 IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY OVERBROAD facts 133 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 197 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2193 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1252 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) I I. THE BAPCPA’S “DEBT RELIEF AGENCY” PROVISIONS ENCOMP facts 63 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 526(a)(4) IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERBR facts 222 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY REJECTED PETITIONE facts 103 — candidate
& 08-1225: Milavetz v. United States/United States v. Milavetz - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Section 528 Is A Reasonable Means Of Combating A Do facts 69 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2166 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 978 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) A STATE OFFICIAL’S VIOLATION OF THE HONEST SERVICES ST facts 298 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Section 1346’s Text And Legal Context Establish Tha facts 320 — candidate
Weyhrauch v. United States - Brief (Merits) D D. Neither Constitutional Avoidance, Federalism Princi facts 72 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 77 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3485 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1221 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE FOR THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUA facts 129 — candidate
United States v. Comstock - Brief (Merits) A A. Section 4248 Appropriately Furthers The Discharge O facts 477 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 117 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2097 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 520 — candidate
Kiyemba v. Obama - Brief (Merits) C C. A Judicial Order That Petitioners Be Brought To The facts 24 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 106 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2649 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 952 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE ELEMENTS OF SECTION 2250(a) CAN BE SATISFIED BY facts 155 — candidate
Carr v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. RELIANCE ON PRE-SORNA TRAVEL TO SATISFY THE INTERS facts 101 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2132 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 887 — candidate
Astrue v. Ratliff - Brief (Merits) I I. AWARDS OF ATTORNEY FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES UNDER EA facts 168 — candidate
United States v. Marcus - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 56 — candidate
United States v. Marcus - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1340 — candidate
United States v. Marcus - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 546 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3456 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 946 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S VENUE TRANSFER MOTIONS D facts 270 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Because The Jury That Decided His Case Was Impartia facts 84 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Petitioner Cannot Establish A Constitutional Violat facts 107 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE HONEST SERVICES STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND facts 115 — candidate
Skilling v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Section 1346 Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague facts 186 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1760 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 499 — candidate
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB - Brief (Merits) CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE NLRB TO OPERATE WITH A TWO-MEM facts 245 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 43 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2702 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 696 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 137 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Statute’s Terms Are Sufficiently Clear To Provi facts 729 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II II. THE MATERIAL-SUPPORT STATUTE’S RESTRICTIONS ON PRO facts 115 — candidate
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Proj./Humanitarian Law Proj. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Statute Is A Regulation Of Conduct That Only In facts 86 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 109 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1851 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 874 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) SECTION 924(c)(1)(B), WHICH INCREASES THE MINIMUM PENA facts 363 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) A A. Section 924(c)(1)’s Language And Structure Show Tha facts 72 — candidate
United States v. O'Brien - Brief (Merits) B B. Secondary Factors That This Court Has Considered Al facts 367 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 72 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3269 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 510 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PERMISSIBLY E facts 349 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) B B. Although Not Required By The Act To Do So, The Comm facts 431 — candidate
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm'n - Brief (Merits) C C. The Commission Acted Reasonably In Approving The Se facts 60 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1665 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 919 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S FELONY BATTERY OFFENSE HAS AS AN ELEMENT facts 75 — candidate
Johnson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Context Of Section 924(e)(2)(B)(i) Supports Its facts 114 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2020 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 980 — candidate
Bloate v. United States - Brief (Merits) ADDITIONAL TIME GRANTED AT A DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PR facts 98 — candidate
Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accunting Oversight Bd. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 127 — candidate
Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accunting Oversight Bd. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2404 — candidate
Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accunting Oversight Bd. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 864 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 103 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2251 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1078 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. A JURY FINDING THAT PETITIONERS CONTEMPLATED ECONOM facts 221 — candidate
Black v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONERS FORFEITED THEIR CLAIM BASED ON THE JUR facts 121 — candidate
Kucana v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
Kucana v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2531 — candidate
Kucana v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 425 — candidate
Kucana v. Holder - Brief (Merits) SECTION 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) DOES NOT BAR JUDICIAL REVIEW facts 120 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1601 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 660 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Term “Process” In Section 101 Encompasses Techn facts 104 — candidate
Bilski v. Kappos - Brief (Merits) I.C C. A Patent-eligible “Process” Under Section 101 Is On facts 140 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 100 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1307 — candidate
Dolan v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 628 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 186 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3658 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 455 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 337 — candidate
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DISTRICT COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN IS facts 270 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 73 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2679 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 529 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 141 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 3624(b)(1) UNAMBIGUOUSLY REQUIRES THE ANNUA facts 174 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Section 3624(b)(1)’s Statutory And Legislative Hist facts 114 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) II II. THE BUREAU’S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE THAT IT facts 105 — candidate
Barber v. Thomas - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Bureau Is Charged With The Administration Of Fe facts 70 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 211 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3500 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 641 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) THE GOVERNMENT’S COLLECTION OF INFORMATION THROUGH SF- facts 221 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) B B. This Case Involves Only The Routine Collection Of E facts 85 — candidate
NASA v. Nelson - Brief (Merits) C C. The Use Of SF-85 And Form 42 To Conduct Background facts 183 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 142 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2327 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 979 — candidate
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S SECOND DRUG POSSESSION CONVICTION IS A CO facts 141 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 222 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Background facts 1072 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Facts And Proceedings Below facts 1741 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 717 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. A REDUCTION OF A PRISONER’S SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMEN facts 314 — candidate
Dillon v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Limitations On The Amount By Which A Term Of Impris facts 26 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 174 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3463 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1022 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) B B. A Defendant Who Pleads Guilty In Exchange For A Spe facts 158 — candidate
Freeman v. United States - Briefs (Merits) C C. Using Section 3582(c)(2) To Reduce A Specific Sente facts 62 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 44 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1135 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 672 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL PRE SCRIBED facts 198 — candidate
Henderson v. Shinseki - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 7266(a) Prescribes A Statutory Time Limit G facts 69 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1035 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 566 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S CONVICTION FOR VEHICULAR FLIGHT FROM A LA facts 239 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Vehicular Flight From Law Enforcement Presents A Se facts 483 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Vehicular Flight From Law Enforcement Is Purposeful facts 651 — candidate
Sykes v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Petitioner’s Arguments That Vehicular Flight Is Not facts 153 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1256 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 883 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) EVIDENCE SEIZED IN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE RE LIANCE ON facts 217 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. SUPPRESSION DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSES OF THE EXCL facts 107 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS DESIGNED TO DETER POLICE facts 176 — candidate
Davis v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. THIS COURT’S RETROACTIVITY JURISPRUDENCE DOES NOT facts 328 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 43 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2670 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1191 — candidate
Milner v. Department of the Navy - Brief (Merits) EXEMPTION 2 APPLIES WHEN THE DISCLOSURE OF MATTERS DIR facts 450 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2096 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 725 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER HAS STANDING TO ARGUE THAT 18 U.S.C. 229 EX facts 196 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 58 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2561 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 946 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) EXEMPTION 7(C)’S PROTECTION FOR “PERSONAL PRI VACY” SA facts 189 — candidate
FCC v. AT&T Inc. - Brief (Merits) A A. FOIA’s Text Demonstrates That Exemption 7(C) Pro te facts 73 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) A A. Factual Background facts 2045 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) B B. Procedural History facts 1947 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 780 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) AFTER DETERMINING THAT PETITIONERS WERE IN DE FAULT, A facts 342 — candidate
General Dynamics v. U.S./The Boeing Co. v. U.S. - Brief (Merits) B B. The Government Is Not The “Moving Party,” Either Pr facts 91 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 55 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2158 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1129 — candidate
United States v. Tinklenberg - Brief (Merits) THE TIME BETWEEN THE FILING OF ANY PRETRIAL MOTION AND facts 328 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 68 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3406 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 638 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE TERM “COCAINE BASE” IN 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1) REFERS facts 160 — candidate
DePierre v. United States - Brief (Merits) E E. Petitioner’s Other Arguments For Limiting “Cocaine facts 20 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 96 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1843 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1162 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) A DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATES SECTION 924(c) IS SUB JECT TO facts 143 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. The Text, Structure, Purpose, And History Of The “E facts 95 — candidate
Abbott v. United States/Gould v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. Petitioners’ Interpretations Of The “Except Clause facts 184 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 95 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1461 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 828 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE RULES ESTABLISHED BY SECTIONS 1401 AND 1409 FO facts 221 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Congress Constitutionally May Apply A Shorter Physi facts 371 — candidate
Flores-Villar v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C.2 2. The Physical-Presence Requirement In Section 1409(c facts 253 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 64 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2624 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 947 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 183 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION IN PEPPER III DID NO facts 326 — candidate
Pepper v. United States - Briefs (Merits) II II. POST-SENTENCING REHABILITATION IS A PERMISSI BLE G facts 147 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 81 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3316 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1221 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE TREASURY REGULATIONS REASONABLY INTER PRET FICA’S facts 296 — candidate
Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Student Exemption Does Not Unambiguously En com facts 163 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 110 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3390 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1380 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 1500 PRECLUDES JURISDICTION IN THE COURT OF facts 211 — candidate
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Federal Circuit’s Interpretation Of Section 150 facts 77 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 214 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2309 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 434 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) I I. PLAINTIFFS’ COMMON-LAW NUISANCE CLAIMS ARE NOT JUST facts 193 — candidate
American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Plaintiffs Lack Prudential Standing Because Their S facts 181 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 37 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1290 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 895 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ERRED IN ABROGATING THE GOVERNMENT facts 654 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) A A. The Government, Not The Tribe, Is The “Real Client” facts 49 — candidate
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation - Brief (Merits) B B. The Government Does Not Have A Common-Law Duty To D facts 178 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 220 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2247 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1264 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 414 — candidate
McNeill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Maximum Potential Sentence Associated With A Pr facts 82 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 22 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2015 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1082 — candidate
Tapia v. United States - Brief (Merits) SECTION 3582(a) PRECLUDES A DISTRICT COURT FROM IMPOSI facts 370 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 58 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2047 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 956 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF VIOLATING 18 U.S. facts 329 — candidate
Fowler v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Federal-Officer Element In Section 1512(a)(1)(C facts 212 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2542 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 644 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S FEDERAL DUTY TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDE facts 130 — candidate
Reynolds v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. SORNA’s Permissive Delegation Of Authority To The A facts 310 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 182 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2245 — candidate
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 723 — candidate
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper statement STATEMENT facts 1933 — candidate
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 681 — candidate
Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper THE PRIVACY ACT DOES NOT SUBJECT THE UNITED STATES TO facts 331 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency statement STATEMENT facts 2020 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 815 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency III III. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT ENTITLE PE TITION facts 61 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 114 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1780 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 595 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13) GOVERNS THE ADMISSION TO THE UNIT facts 222 — candidate
Vartelas v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. Application Of Section 1101(a)(13)(C) In The Circum facts 319 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 164 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2593 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 678 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) I.A A. A Section 145 Suit Is A Proceeding For Judicial Rev facts 150 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Evidence That Reasonably Could Have Been Presented facts 64 — candidate
Kappos v. Hyatt - Brief (Merits) II II. CONGRESS’S REENACTMENT OF SECTION 145 IN THE PATEN facts 89 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2616 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1327 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Individuals Have No Reasonable Expectation Of Priva facts 420 — candidate
United States v. Jones - Brief (Merits) II II. ATTACHING THE GPS TRACKING DEVICE TO RESPON DENT’S facts 92 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 132 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2942 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1156 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 184 — candidate
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 906(c) Makes Applicable The National Averag facts 480 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 116 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2159 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 875 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) SECTION 1229b(a) DOES NOT PERMIT IMPUTATION OF A PAREN facts 157 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) A A. The Plain Text Of Section 1229b(a) Requires That Th facts 94 — candidate
Holder v. Gutierrez/Holder v. Sawyers - Brief (Merits) B B. The Legislative History And Statutory Context Do No facts 121 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 91 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2388 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1148 — candidate
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid - Brief (Merits) I I. THE OCSLA’S EXTENSION OF LONGSHORE ACT COV ERAGE IS facts 122 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 118 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2082 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 739 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I I. SECTION 514 IS A VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’S POWER facts 220 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Historical Practice Confirms That The Copyright Cla facts 115 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 514 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT facts 234 — candidate
Golan v. Holder - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Section 514 Satisfies Any Potentially Applicable St facts 289 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 37 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission statement STATEMENT facts 2294 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1280 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II II. APPLICATION OF THE ADA’S ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIO facts 384 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.A A. The Free Exercise Clause Does Not Bar Application O facts 159 — candidate
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II.C C. The Establishment Clause Does Not Require Dismissal facts 179 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 99 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2196 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1104 — candidate
Kawashima v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. No Canon Of Statutory Construction Warrants A Depar facts 347 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 73 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3442 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 499 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS REASONABLY DECLINED TO E facts 423 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) A A. The Board’s Statutory-Counterpart Rule Reflects A R facts 455 — candidate
Judulang v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. The Board’s 2005 Decision Applying Its StatutoryCou facts 105 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 235 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3057 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 958 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 192 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Clinton - Brief (Merits) I.A A. The Constitution Assigns Exclusively To The Executi facts 117 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 92 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1033 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 834 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE DISTRICT COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY ORDERI facts 149 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 3584(a) Applies To Cases Involving Simulta facts 53 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. SECTION 3584 APPROPRIATELY LEAVES THE TREAT MENT O facts 119 — candidate
Setser v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Sovereigns With Custody Over A Defendant May Ma facts 231 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 42 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1456 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 983 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) 11 U.S.C. 1222(a)(2)(A) IS INAPPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX facts 149 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. A Chapter 12 Plan Is Limited To Pre-Petition Claims facts 168 — candidate
Hall v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Post-Petition Income Taxes Of An Individual Chapter facts 90 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 156 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1962 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 974 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) BY OVERSTATING THEIR BASES IN HOME CONCRETE AND THEREB facts 132 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) A A. Section 6501(e)(1)(A) Establishes That An Overstate facts 74 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) B B. The Recent Treasury Regulation Resolves Any Statuto facts 87 — candidate
United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC - Brief (Merits) C C. This Court’s Decision In Colony Does Not Control Th facts 166 — candidate
Astrue v. Capato - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
Astrue v. Capato - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 782 — candidate
Astrue v. Capato - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 567 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 234 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Comprehensive Federal Immigration Framework facts 1551 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Arizona’s S.B. 1070 facts 560 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Four Provisions Of S.B. 1070 Are Enjoined facts 756 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 835 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. ARIZONA’S ATTEMPT TO PUNISH VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL facts 146 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Section 3 Impermissibly Intrudes Into A Field Reser facts 178 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Section 5 Impermissibly Imposes A Punishment That C facts 87 — candidate
State of Arizona v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. ARIZONA’S NEW STOP AND ARREST PROVISIONS ARE NOT facts 118 — candidate
United States v. Bormes - Briefs (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
United States v. Bormes - Briefs (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1745 — candidate
United States v. Bormes - Briefs (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1805 — candidate
United States v. Bormes - Briefs (Merits) THE TUCKER ACT AND LITTLE TUCKER ACT DO NOT AU THORIZE facts 371 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 83 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3958 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 607 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS H facts 177 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Court Of Appeals Employed The Correct HarmlessE facts 315 — candidate
Vasquez v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Non-Constitutional Hearsay Error In This Case W facts 122 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 62 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2746 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 852 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Knowingly False Statements Of Fact Are Entitled At facts 543 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) II.B.1 1. The Court has consistently applied the breathing sp facts 1921 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) II.B.2 2. The Court’s decisions establish the attributes of a facts 184 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Congress Has Enacted Numerous Statutes Prohibiting facts 1046 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) II.D D. Against This Backdrop, The Court Of Appeals Was Wro facts 839 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) III.A A. The Government Has A Compelling Interest In Protect facts 2372 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) III.B.1 1. Section 704(b) does not chill any protected speech facts 568 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) III.B.2 2. Even assuming that Section 704(b) risked chilling s facts 563 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) III.C C. Section 704(b) Does Not Unconstitutionally Restrict facts 400 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) III.D D. Section 704(b) Is Not Unconstitutional As Applied T facts 446 — candidate
United States v. Alvarez - Brief (Merits) IV IV. SECTION 704(b) ALSO CAN BE UPHELD UNDER STRICT SCR facts 460 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 92 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1553 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 942 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) I I. THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT WAIVED ITS SOVER EIGN IMM facts 112 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) I.C C. Patchak’s Lack Of Any Interest In The Bradley Prope facts 132 — candidate
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak/Salazar v. Patchak - Brief (Merits) II II. PATCHAK LACKS PRUDENTIAL STANDING facts 203 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 138 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) A A. Statutory Background facts 1490 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) B B. Proceedings Below facts 422 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 729 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 288 — candidate
National Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius/Florida v. Sebelius - Brief (Merits) II II. IF THE COURT REACHES THE QUESTION, IT SHOULD HOLD facts 266 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 93 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) A A. Statutory Background facts 2500 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) B B. Proceedings Below facts 526 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1420 — candidate
Florida v. HHS - Brief (Merits) B B. The Nature Of the Medicaid Program And The Amount O facts 253 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2696 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1179 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 117 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) I I. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BYPASS JUDICIAL REVIEW AV facts 156 — candidate
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury - Brief (Merits) II II. PETITIONERS WERE REQUIRED TO PURSUE THEIR CONSTITU facts 110 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 65 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.A A. General Provisions Of The ISDA facts 461 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.B B. ISDA Contracts And Federal Appropriations facts 254 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.C C. This Court’s Decision In Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt facts 290 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.A A. The Bureau Of Indian Affairs And The ISDA facts 206 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Statutory Appropriations Caps On The BIA’s Funding facts 586 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.C C. The BIA’s Distribution Of Available Appropriations facts 524 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) III.A A. Background facts 327 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) III.B B. The District Court’s Decision facts 364 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) III.C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision facts 856 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 945 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Secretary Was Without Authority To Obligate The facts 318 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II II. NEITHER THE ISDA ITSELF NOR ANY CONTRACT THEREUNDE facts 145 — candidate
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Respondents Have No Contractual Right To Payment Of facts 122 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 27 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Adoption Of The 100-to-1 Ratio facts 466 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. The Sentencing Commission’s Escalating Criticism Of facts 1684 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.C C. The Fair Sentencing Act facts 387 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.D D. The Emergency Guidelines Amendments facts 112 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Dorsey (No. 11-5683) facts 690 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Hill (No. 11-5721) facts 344 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.C C. Subsequent Proceedings facts 820 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 840 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE FAIR SENTENCING ACT APPLIES IN ALL INITIAL SENTENC facts 563 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Text, Structure, And Background Of The FSA Demo facts 87 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) A.3 Post-FSA Guidelines sentences and pre-FSA mandatory mi facts 568 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The History And Purposes Of The FSA Confirm That Co facts 99 — candidate
Dorsey v. United States/Hill v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Reliance On The General Savin facts 176 — candidate
Southern Union Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 82 — candidate
Southern Union Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2022 — candidate
Southern Union Co. v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 957 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 183 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3874 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1130 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) RESPONDENTS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THEIR ARTICLE III STAN facts 376 — candidate
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA - Brief (Merits) B B. Respondents’ Asserted Ongoing, Present Injuries Are facts 76 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 53 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2817 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 799 — candidate
Millbrook v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN THE LAW ENFORCEMEN facts 207 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 280 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. statement STATEMENT facts 4104 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 594 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. argument ARGUMENT facts 155 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. I I. THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE DOES NOT SHIELD THE TRANS facts 180 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. II II. EVEN IF GEORGIA LAW HAD UNAMBIGUOUSLY CON DONED TH facts 143 — candidate
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 73 — candidate
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2608 — candidate
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 628 — candidate
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. - Brief (Merits) THE 180-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR A PROVIDER TO APPEAL TO THE facts 421 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission statement STATEMENT facts 1642 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 985 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission I I. THE FIVE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN 28 U.S.C. 2462 facts 133 — candidate
Gabelli v. Securities & Exchange Commission II II. PETITIONERS’ COUNTERARGUMENTS LACK MERIT facts 33 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 105 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1569 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1090 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE GONZALEZ ACT DOES NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY WAIVE SOVEREIG facts 361 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Section 1089(e) Can Amend The FTCA To Permit Bat te facts 169 — candidate
Levin v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 1089(e) Assumes The Inapplicability Of Sect facts 104 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission statement STATEMENT facts 2206 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1038 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission CHEVRON APPLIES TO AN AGENCY’S INTERPRETATION OF ITS S facts 107 — candidate
City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission/Cable, Telecommunications, & Technology Committee of the New Orleans City Council v. Federal Communications Commission B B. The Chevron Framework Applies To The Determination facts 146 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 100 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 3676 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1165 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 245 — candidate
Kloeckner v. Solis - Brief (Merits) I I. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDIC TION TO facts 271 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 87 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3003 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 802 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE UNITED STATES DID NOT TAKE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY facts 148 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Any Incremental Flooding Of Petitioner’s Floodplain facts 65 — candidate
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Even If The Temporary Nature Of The Flooding Here D facts 63 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 167 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1627 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 880 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S STATE CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJU facts 317 — candidate
Moncrieffe v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 841(b)(4)’s Mitigating Exception Does Not A facts 228 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2538 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 862 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER’S DETENTION INCIDENT TO THE EXECU TION OF A facts 327 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Under Michigan v. Summers, Police Officers Executin facts 85 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. A Strict Geographic Limit On Detention Would Be In facts 104 — candidate
Bailey v. United States - Brief (Merits) C C. Substantial Law Enforcement Interests Justify Detai facts 142 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 81 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1392 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 958 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN PADILLA v. KENTUCKY DOES NOT facts 543 — candidate
Chaidez v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE TEAGUE FRAMEWORK APPLIES TO COLLAT ERAL CHALLE facts 91 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 57 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1864 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 941 — candidate
Smith v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THA facts 191 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1738 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 625 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 52(b), AN ERR facts 327 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Structure, Text, History, And Purposes Of Rule facts 126 — candidate
Henderson v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Arguments Of Petitioner And His Amicus That The facts 49 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 16 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 967 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 977 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 194 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE COURT SHOULD REAFFIRM HARRIS’S HOLDING THAT SE facts 183 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) III III. THIS COURT SHOULD REAFFIRM HARRIS’S HOLD ING THAT facts 222 — candidate
Alleyne v. United States - Brief (Merits) III.B B. Harris And McMillan Correctly Concluded That The Co facts 80 — candidate
Descamps v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 67 — candidate
Descamps v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1727 — candidate
Descamps v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 827 — candidate
Descamps v. United States PETITIONER’S CONVICTION UNDER CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § facts 168 — candidate
Descamps v. United States A A. Under The ACCA, The Modified Categorical Approach P facts 174 — candidate
Descamps v. United States B B. Some Convictions Under California Penal Code § 459 facts 84 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2255 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1076 — candidate
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. - Brief (Merits) THE LEADERSHIP ACT’S FUNDING CONDITION IS A VALID EXER facts 355 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 49 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. statement STATEMENT facts 3499 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 997 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. PETITIONERS’ JUST COMPENSATION CLAIM CANNOT BE BROUGHT facts 167 — candidate
Horne v. Department of Agric. C C. Petitioners’ Various Contentions For Establishing J facts 42 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 42 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1803 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 514 — candidate
United States v. Davila - Brief (Merits) B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Automatic-Vacatur Approach To facts 122 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2976 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 629 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) A VACCINE ACT CLAIMANT WHOSE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION facts 145 — candidate
Sebelius v. Cloer - Brief (Merits) C C. Applicable Canons Of Statutory Construction Reinfor facts 65 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 103 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) statement STATEMENT facts 2625 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1161 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) SECTION 3 OF DOMA VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION facts 394 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) A A. Classifications Based On Sexual Orientation Should facts 743 — candidate
United States v. Windsor - Brief (Merits Question) B B. Section 3 Of DOMA Fails Heightened Scrutiny facts 237 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2556 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1050 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER ATTEMPTED EXTORTION UNDER THE HOBBS ACT WHE facts 216 — candidate
Sekhar v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The General Counsel’s Right To Give Disinterested L facts 136 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 189 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3547 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 919 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. I I. TREATING REVERSE-PAYMENT AGREEMENTS AS PRESUMPTIVEL facts 105 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. II II. THE “QUICK LOOK” APPROACH, UNDER WHICH RE VERSE-PA facts 180 — candidate
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharms., Inc. II.C C. The Economic Incentives Created By The HatchWaxman facts 66 — candidate
United States v. Kebodeaux - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 221 — candidate
United States v. Kebodeaux - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2999 — candidate
United States v. Kebodeaux - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 819 — candidate
United States v. Kebodeaux - Brief (Merits) CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SUBJECT A FORMER facts 169 — candidate
United States v. Kebodeaux - Brief (Merits) I I. SORNA DID NOT “REASSERT” FEDERAL JURISDIC TION OVER facts 256 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 56 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 2605 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1092 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) B B. The Windfall Tax Is Not “In Substance” An Income Ta facts 79 — candidate
PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner - Brief (Merits) C C. The Windfall Tax Does Not Satisfy Any Of The Three facts 469 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3229 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 725 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission argument ARGUMENT facts 211 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission I I. THIS COURT SHOULD ADHERE TO BUCKLEY’S HOLD ING THAT facts 84 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission II II. THIS COURT SHOULD ADHERE TO BUCKLEY’S HOLD ING THA facts 48 — candidate
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission II.C C. Buckley Forecloses Appellants’ Challenge To The Ag facts 30 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 172 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) I.A A. Section 6662’s Basis-Overstatement Penalty facts 1066 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Procedures For Auditing Partnership Returns And Im facts ❝ 1786 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) II.A A. Execution Of The COBRA Tax Shelter facts 911 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) II.B B. Administrative And Judicial Proceedings Below facts 1039 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1495 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) A A. The Courts Below Had Jurisdiction To Determine, In facts 714 — candidate
United States v. Woods - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 6662’s Basis-Overstatement Penalty Applies facts 142 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 48 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2002 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1161 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE PERMITS A COURT TO CONSIDER T facts 91 — candidate
Peugh v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. An Increase In An Advisory Federal Sentencing Guide facts 317 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 57 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1965 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 723 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) THE 2006 REAUTHORIZATION OF SECTIONS 4(b) AND 5 OF THE facts 336 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B B. Section 5’s Preclearance Requirement Is Justified B facts 149 — candidate
Shelby Cnty. v. Holder - Brief (Merits) B.1 1. Congress found substantial evidence of ongoing dis facts 224 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 44 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1352 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 595 — candidate
United States v. Apel - Brief (Merits) argument ARGUMENT facts 265 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 31 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 4140 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 830 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency argument ARGUMENT facts 145 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency I I. THE EPA PERMISSIBLY DETERMINED THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE facts 113 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency I.B B. Petitioners’ Arguments Regarding The Substantive Re facts 66 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency II II. EPA PERMISSIBLY CONCLUDED THAT GREENHOUSE-GAS EMIS facts 310 — candidate
Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. Environmental Protection Agency II.B B. Petitioners’ Arguments Regarding The Stationary Sou facts 79 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 142 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2637 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1260 — candidate
Brandt v. United States - Brief (Merits) THE UNITED STATES RETAINS TITLE TO THE ABAN DONED RIGH facts 366 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 271 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3220 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 701 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP A A. In Holding That The EPA’s Issuance Of Federal Imple facts 464 — candidate
Enivronmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, LP B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Adjudicating Unpre se facts 92 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 136 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning statement STATEMENT facts 1299 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1138 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning argument ARGUMENT facts 261 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning A A. The President’s Recess-Appointment Authority Is Not facts 124 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning B B. The President May Fill Any Vacancy That Exists Duri facts 129 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. Canning C C. The Senate Is In “Recess” For Purposes Of The Reces facts 169 — candidate
United States v. Castleman question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 117 — candidate
United States v. Castleman statement STATEMENT facts 1581 — candidate
United States v. Castleman summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 792 — candidate
United States v. Castleman RESPONDENT’S MISDEMEANOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT CONVICTION Q facts 205 — candidate
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 24 — candidate
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1494 — candidate
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 479 — candidate
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Construing 26 U.S.C. facts 97 — candidate
Abramski v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 94 — candidate
Abramski v. United States al buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to facts 10 — candidate
Abramski v. United States Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For pur facts 49 — candidate
Abramski v. United States TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith facts 74 — candidate
Abramski v. United States derst[ood] that answering ‘yes’ to question 11.a if [h facts ❝ 1113 — candidate
Abramski v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 773 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.B B. Petitioner’s Contention That His False Statement Ab facts 112 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.B.1 answer “YES” to question 11.1.”)) is reasonable. A per facts 464 — candidate
Abramski v. United States I.B.3 4473 (Supp. J.A. 1) that “[i]f you are not the actual facts 856 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 134 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts 1916 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 574 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY CONVICTED OF USING CHEMICAL WEA facts 235 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) I I. PETITIONER’S CONDUCT WAS PROSCRIBED BY THE ACT facts 58 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) I.B B. Petitioner’s Use Of Toxic Chemicals To Harm Haynes facts 135 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) II II. THE ACT’S APPLICATION TO PETITIONER IS CONSTI TUTI facts 135 — candidate
Bond v. United States - Brief (Merits) II.B B. The Act’s Application To Petitioner Is Independentl facts 390 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. The Legal Background facts 1089 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. The Present Controversy facts 1603 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1134 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) PETITIONERS HAD NO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE GRAND JURY’S facts 317 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) A A. Reliance On The Grand Jury’s Probable-Cause Determi facts 199 — candidate
Kaley v. United States - Brief (Merits) B B. Even Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge Balancing Tes facts 153 — candidate
Burrage v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 113 — candidate
Burrage v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2989 — candidate
Burrage v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 727 — candidate
Burrage v. United States PETITIONER’S JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE ELEME facts 390 — candidate
Burrage v. United States I I. As A Matter Of Causation In Fact, Death “Result[ed] facts 73 — candidate
Burrage v. United States I.A A. Like many criminal laws, the “death results” provis facts 128 — candidate
Burrage v. United States II II. Once The Government Establishes That A Controlled facts 184 — candidate
Paroline v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
Paroline v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2209 — candidate
Paroline v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 573 — candidate
Paroline v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 655 — candidate
Paroline v. United States B B. The Victim’s Harm And Losses Must Factually And Pro facts 235 — candidate
Paroline v. United States D D. Questions Involving The Allocation Of Aggregate Los facts 143 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 141 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1948 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 894 — candidate
Robers v. United States - Brief (Merits) WHEN A DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINS LOAN FUNDS TO PU facts 166 — candidate
United States v. Wong question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 25 — candidate
United States v. Wong A A. The Legal Background facts 1332 — candidate
United States v. Wong B B. The Present Controversy facts ❝ 1812 — candidate
United States v. Wong summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 723 — candidate
United States v. Wong THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT’S TIME BARS ARE NOT SUBJEC facts 92 — candidate
United States v. Wong B B. The FTCA Time Limits For Filing Suit Were Not Subje facts 90 — candidate
United States v. Wong C C. Events Following The FTCA’s Enactment In 1946 Confi facts 30 — candidate
United States v. June question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
United States v. June A A. The Legal Background facts 1358 — candidate
United States v. June B B. The Present Controversy facts 971 — candidate
United States v. June summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 816 — candidate
United States v. June THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT’S TIME BARS ARE NOT SUBJEC facts 298 — candidate
United States v. June B B. The FTCA Time Limits For Filing Suit Were Not Subje facts 90 — candidate
United States v. June C C. Events Following The FTCA’s Enactment In 1946 Confi facts 46 — candidate
Wood v. Moss question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 262 — candidate
Wood v. Moss statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3034 — candidate
Wood v. Moss summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1203 — candidate
Wood v. Moss RESPONDENTS’ ALLEGATIONS THAT PETITIONERS PROTECTED TH facts ❝ 433 — candidate
United States v. Wurie question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
United States v. Wurie statement STATEMENT facts 1694 — candidate
United States v. Wurie summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 989 — candidate
United States v. Wurie A A. The Warrantless Search Of A Cell Phone Seized From facts 217 — candidate
United States v. Wurie B B. Even If The Police Are Not Always Authorized To Sea facts 159 — candidate
United States v. Clarke question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
United States v. Clarke statement STATEMENT facts 1816 — candidate
United States v. Clarke summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 725 — candidate
United States v. Clarke AN UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT THE IRS IS SUED A SUMMO facts 178 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 30 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2429 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 912 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States SECTION 1344(2) DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF INTENT TO DE facts 523 — candidate
Loughrin v. United States B B. Section 1344(2) Does Not Require Proof That The Fra facts 335 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 83 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2123 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 730 — candidate
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. IV IV. RESPONDENTS’ CLAIMS WOULD FAIL EVEN IF THE CONTRAC facts 41 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 71 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1359 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 998 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius argument ARGUMENT facts 563 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius II II. RFRA CHALLENGE TO THE CONTRACEPTIVE-COVERAGE PROVI facts 96 — candidate
Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius II.B B. Claims Would Fail Even If The Contraceptive-Coverag facts ❝ 39 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 174 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry statement STATEMENT facts 1857 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 822 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.A A. The Constitution Assigns Exclusively To The Executi facts 214 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry I.B B. Historical Practice Confirms That The Executive Bra facts 233 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry II II. SECTION 214(d) UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INTERFERES WITH facts 257 — candidate
Zivotofsky v. Kerry II.B B. Section 214(d) Unconstitutionally Forces The Execut facts 61 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 137 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2509 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1036 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean THE DISCLOSURE OF SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION IS “S facts 348 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean A A. Section 2302(b)(8)(A)’s “Specifically Prohibited By facts 124 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 114 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1870 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 812 — candidate
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n AN AGENCY MAY ADOPT AN INTERPRETIVE RULE ALTERING ITS facts 494 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 141 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R statement STATEMENT facts 2956 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 857 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R argument ARGUMENT facts 160 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R A A. The Government Retained Sufficient Control Over The facts 238 — candidate
Department of Transp. v. Association of Am. R.R B B. Amtrak Should Not Be Considered A “Private” Entity facts 100 — candidate
Kerry v. Din question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 77 — candidate
Kerry v. Din statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2750 — candidate
Kerry v. Din summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 987 — candidate
Henderson v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 53 — candidate
Henderson v. United States Motion to Return Property. A person aggrieved facts 1157 — candidate
Henderson v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 760 — candidate
Henderson v. United States II II. IF PETITIONER’S MOTION IS CONSIDERED AS A MORE GEN facts 343 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 110 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission statement STATEMENT facts 3908 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 968 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission THE STATE-ACTION DOCTRINE DOES NOT SHIELD PETITIONER’S facts 661 — candidate
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission B B. The FTC And The Court Of Appeals Correctly Held Tha facts 228 — candidate
Johnson v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Johnson v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2342 — candidate
Johnson v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 742 — candidate
Johnson v. United States THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUN IS facts 430 — candidate
Johnson v. United States A A. An Individual’s Unlawful Possession Of A ShortBarre facts 93 — candidate
Yates v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 97 — candidate
Yates v. United States A A. The Legal Background facts ❝ 827 — candidate
Yates v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 1129 — candidate
Yates v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 862 — candidate
Yates v. United States I I. SECTION 1519 PROHIBITS THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL TANGI facts 100 — candidate
Yates v. United States I.A A. Section 1519 Unambiguously Covers All Physical Evid facts 25 — candidate
Yates v. United States I.B B. Congress Modeled Section 1519 On Similar Provisions facts 112 — candidate
Yates v. United States II II. PETITIONER’S NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 1519 L facts 45 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.A A. Neither Text Nor Context Supports Limiting “Any * * facts 49 — candidate
Yates v. United States II.C C. Petitioner’s Construction Of Section 1519 Is Not Co facts 41 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 106 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2644 — candidate
Whitfield v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 981 — candidate
Elonis v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 49 — candidate
Elonis v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2903 — candidate
Elonis v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1060 — candidate
Elonis v. United States PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY CONVICTED OF MAKING TRUE THREAT facts 248 — candidate
Elonis v. United States I I. SUBJECTIVE INTENT TO THREATEN IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF facts 49 — candidate
Elonis v. United States I.B B. Subjective Intent To Threaten Is Not A Statutory El facts 116 — candidate
Elonis v. United States II II. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF SUBJ facts 113 — candidate
Elonis v. United States II.C C. Prohibiting True Threats Without Proof Of Subjectiv facts 64 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1551 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 913 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I I. A POLICE OFFICER MAY CONDUCT A DOG SNIFF DURING A T facts 322 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.A A. An Officer May Conduct A Range Of Investigatory Inq facts 199 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.B B. An Officer May Perform A Dog Sniff During A Traffic facts 80 — candidate
Rodriguez v. United States I.C C. When An Officer Conducts A Dog Sniff After, Rather facts 113 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 57 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. statement STATEMENT facts 3809 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 856 — candidate
Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric. I I. THE RAISIN RESERVE REGULATIONS DO NOT EFFECT A PER facts 976 — candidate
McFadden question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 60 — candidate
McFadden statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2643 — candidate
McFadden summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1310 — candidate
McFadden THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DECLINED TO INSTRUCT THE facts 103 — candidate
McFadden A A. The CSA’s Mental-State Requirements Must Be Adapted facts 196 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 25 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3550 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1042 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency EPA REASONABLY DECLINED TO CONSIDER COSTS WHEN LISTING facts 110 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency B B. The Text, Structure, And History Of The CAA Establi facts 91 — candidate
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency/Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency/National Mining Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency C C. Petitioners’ Arguments Fail To Establish That Secti facts 45 — candidate
Green v. Brennan question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Green v. Brennan statement STATEMENT facts 2099 — candidate
Green v. Brennan summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1039 — candidate
Green v. Brennan WHEN A TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIM DEPENDS ON THE PRES facts 213 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 153 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. statement STATEMENT facts 4371 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT facts 905 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. TITLE VII BARS AN EMPLOYER FROM REFUSING TO HIRE AN AP facts 103 — candidate
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. B B. The Reasons Offered By The Court Of Appeals Do Not facts 21 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 59 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2041 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 698 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States II II. A STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY NOT BE SUCCES facts 277 — candidate
Musacchio v. United States II.B B. In No Event May A Statute-Of-Limitations Defense Be facts 116 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 22 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2630 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 577 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I I. THE 1882 ACT DID NOT DIMINISH THE OMAHA RESERVATION facts 654 — candidate
Nebraska v. Parker I.C C. The Subsequent Treatment Of The Area And The Patter facts 231 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2368 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 804 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO AGREES TO OBTAIN PROPERTY FROM A facts 258 — candidate
Ocasio v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Other Arguments For Limiting Conspirac facts 52 — candidate
Luis v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 21 — candidate
Luis v. United States A A. Statutory Background facts 691 — candidate
Luis v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 2153 — candidate
Luis v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 936 — candidate
Luis v. United States PETITIONER’S SUBSTITUTE ASSETS WERE VALIDLY RESTRAINED facts 101 — candidate
Taylor v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 62 — candidate
Taylor v. United States A A. Statutory Background facts 466 — candidate
Taylor v. United States B B. The Current Controversy facts 1892 — candidate
Taylor v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 430 — candidate
Taylor v. United States THE TRIAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT PETITION facts 207 — candidate
Taylor v. United States A A. The Hobbs Act’s Jurisdictional Element Employs The facts 36 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 54 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States A A. Statutory Background facts 1625 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States B B. Proceedings in Petitioner’s Case facts ❝ 1203 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 526 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States I I. SECTION 2252(b)(2) REQUIRES A MANDATORY MINIMUM SEN facts 82 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II II. PETITIONER’S ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 2 facts 135 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.A A. The Series-Qualifier Principle Does Not Apply facts 96 — candidate
Lockhart v. United States II.B B. No “Other Indicia Of Meaning” Show That Congress In facts 55 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 74 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n A A. Regulatory And Technical Background facts 1334 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n B B. Demand Response In Wholesale Markets facts 794 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n C C. Orders Under Review facts 949 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n D D. Decision Of The Court Of Appeals facts ❝ 932 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 727 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n argument ARGUMENT facts 93 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n I I. FERC HAS AUTHORITY UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT TO P facts ❝ 350 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n II II. FERC REASONABLY EXPLAINED ITS DECISION TO ADOPT TH facts 103 — candidate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n To Adopt The LMP Formula facts ❝ 2788 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 141 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels statement STATEMENT facts 1478 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1522 — candidate
Bruce v. Samuels MONTHLY PAYMENTS FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS PRISONERS UNDER facts 122 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A A. Government Procurement Background facts ❝ 2617 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States B B. The Department Of Veterans Affairs facts 350 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States C C. The 2006 Veterans Act And The VA’s Regulations facts ❝ 963 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States D D. Facts And Procedural History facts 615 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 739 — candidate
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States A A. Section 8127 Does Not Override The VA’s Ability To facts 140 — candidate
Voisine v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 114 — candidate
Voisine v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2137 — candidate
Voisine v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 956 — candidate
Voisine v. United States A A. Hayes and Castleman Establish That A Misdemeanor Cr facts 156 — candidate
Voisine v. United States B B. Reckless Battery Satisfies The “Use Of Force” Requi facts 95 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 128 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich A A. The Legal Background facts 1212 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich B B. The Present Controversy facts ❝ 753 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1033 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich argument ARGUMENT facts 326 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I I. THE DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT’S FTCA CASE PURSUANT TO facts 415 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.A A. The Judgment Bar’s Text Encompasses Section 2680 Di facts 80 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich I.C C. Res Judicata Principles Do Not Prevent Section 2680 facts 271 — candidate
Simmons v. Himmelreich II II. RESPONDENT’S NEW ARGUMENTS AGAINST APPLYING THE JU facts 102 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 121 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana statement STATEMENT facts 1503 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1006 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana argument ARGUMENT facts 250 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.B B. The Rules Established By Sections 1401 and 1409 Are facts ❝ 141 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.C C. The Rules Established By Sections 1401 and 1409 Are facts 62 — candidate
Lynch v. Morales-Santana I.U U.S.-citizen father facts 751 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 241 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez A A. Detention Of Aliens Seeking Admission Into The Unit facts 641 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez B B. Detention During Proceedings To Remove Aliens Alrea facts 791 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez C C. Detention Under A Final Order Of Removal facts 148 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez D D. Procedural History facts 508 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1139 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez argument ARGUMENT facts 267 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez I I. NOT BE RELEASED ON BOND BY AN IMMIGRATION JUDGE facts 122 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez II II. SECTION 1226(c) DOES NOT PERMIT CRIMINAL ALIENS TO facts 68 — candidate
Jennings v. Rodriguez III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REWRITING THE PROCE facts 78 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 245 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. A.1 1. Appointments practice before enactment of the Feder facts 433 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. A.2 2. Perceived abuses spur congressional protest facts 768 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. A.3 3. The FVRA is proposed to curb perceived circumventio facts 453 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. A.4 4. The White House and Members of Congress insist on c facts 623 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. A.5 5. Beginning immediately after its enactment, Subsecti facts 836 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. B B. Proceedings In This Case facts 786 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1515 — candidate
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. argument ARGUMENT facts 125 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. statement STATEMENT facts 3376 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 898 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION IS NOT IMMEDIATELY REVI facts 195 — candidate
United States Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co. B B. A Jurisdictional Determination Is Not “Final Agency facts 369 — candidate
United States v. Bryant question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 90 — candidate
United States v. Bryant A A. Statutory Background facts 1084 — candidate
United States v. Bryant B B. The Current Controversy facts ❝ 2208 — candidate
United States v. Bryant summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1032 — candidate
United States v. Bryant SECTION 117(a) IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO OFFENDE facts 189 — candidate
United States v. Bryant A A. The Sixth Amendment Does Not Preclude Reliance On V facts 72 — candidate
United States v. Bryant B B. Due Process Principles Do Not Preclude Reliance On facts 93 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 121 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee statement STATEMENT facts 2812 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 734 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I I. THE PTO APPROPRIATELY DECIDED TO APPLY ITS BROADEST facts 274 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.A A. Use Of The Broadest-Reasonable-Construction Standar facts 144 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee I.B B. The PTO Has Reasonably Exercised Its Delegated Auth facts 168 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee II II. THE PTO’S THRESHOLD DECISION TO INSTITUTE AN INTER facts 145 — candidate
Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee II.A A. The Statute Bars All Judicial Review, Not Just Inte facts 65 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A.1 1. Petitioner takes office facing personal financial d facts 88 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A.2 2. Petitioner meets Jonnie Williams and learns what Wi facts 300 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A.3 3. Petitioner and Mrs. McDonnell solicit and accept te facts 377 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A.4 4. Williams continues to provide gifts and loans to se facts ❝ 1374 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A.5 5. Petitioner and Williams conceal the scheme facts 93 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States B B. The Proceedings Below facts ❝ 713 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 654 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY CONVICTED ON PUBLIC CORRUPTION facts 59 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States A A. The Corruption Charges In This Case Required Proof facts 99 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States C C. This Court Should Reject Petitioner’s Cramped Inter facts 67 — candidate
McDonnell v. United States D D. Sufficient Evidence Supported The Jury’s Finding Th facts 417 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 54 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2380 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1067 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE INCONSI facts 113 — candidate
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States B B. Courts Need Not Disregard Convictions That Have Bee facts 100 — candidate
Shaw v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
Shaw v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1951 — candidate
Shaw v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 877 — candidate
Shaw v. United States SECTION 1344(1) IS NOT LIMITED TO SCHEMES TARGETING PR facts 197 — candidate
Shaw v. United States B B. Bank Deposits Are A “Property” Interest That Sectio facts 126 — candidate
Shaw v. United States C C. Section 1344(1) Requires Proof Of An Intent To Dece facts 174 — candidate
Salman v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
Salman v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2464 — candidate
Salman v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 659 — candidate
Salman v. United States D D. Petitioner’s Attack On The Dirks Standard Lacks Mer facts 38 — candidate
Welch v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 87 — candidate
Welch v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2748 — candidate
Welch v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1145 — candidate
Welch v. United States I I. JOHNSON ANNOUNCED A NEW SUBSTANTIVE RULE OF CONSTIT facts 152 — candidate
United States v. Texas question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 211 — candidate
United States v. Texas A A. Legal Framework facts 1785 — candidate
United States v. Texas B B. Factual And Procedural Background facts 792 — candidate
United States v. Texas summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1395 — candidate
United States v. Texas I I. facts 43 — candidate
United States v. Texas I.A A. Respondents Lack Article III Standing facts 451 — candidate
United States v. Texas II II. THE GUIDANCE IS A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE SECRETARY facts ❝ 460 — candidate
United States v. Texas II.B B. The History Of Immigration Law Confirms That The Gu facts 122 — candidate
Manrique v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 20 — candidate
Manrique v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1088 — candidate
Manrique v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 522 — candidate
Beckles v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 172 — candidate
Beckles v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 1388 — candidate
Beckles v. United States B B. The Current Controversy facts 829 — candidate
Beckles v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 846 — candidate
Beckles v. United States PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING ON COLLATER facts ❝ 196 — candidate
Beckles v. United States I I. THE RULE THAT PETITIONER SEEKS WOULD NOT APPLY RETR facts 149 — candidate
Beckles v. United States II II. PETITIONER WAS NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS IN HIS SENTE facts 135 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 106 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa statement STATEMENT facts 1845 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1021 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa I I. THE JUDICIALLY CREATED BIVENS REMEDY SHOULD NOT BE facts 114 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa I.B B. Congress, Not The Judiciary, Is The Appropriate Bod facts 159 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa II II. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO ALIENS IN H facts 155 — candidate
Hernandez v. Mesa III III. AGENT MESA IS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON P facts ❝ 44 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 47 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission statement STATEMENT facts 3005 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 947 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argument ARGUMENT facts 67 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission I I. A DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION WHETHER TO ENFORCE AN E facts 234 — candidate
McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission II II. ENFORCEMENT OF THE EEOC’S SUBPOENA FOR PEDIGREE IN facts 112 — candidate
Lee v. Tam question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 80 — candidate
Lee v. Tam statement STATEMENT facts 1507 — candidate
Lee v. Tam summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1280 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 203 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi statement STATEMENT facts 2926 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 876 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi argument ARGUMENT facts 192 — candidate
Ashcroft v. Abbasi I I. Special Factors Counsel Against Extending The Judic facts 122 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 24 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2055 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 779 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya A A. Immigration Removal Laws Are Not Subject To The Sta facts 236 — candidate
Lynch v. Dimaya B B. Section 16(b) Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague Under facts 90 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 16 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States A A. Catherine Fuller’s Murder And The Government Invest facts 1503 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States B.1 1. The government’s case facts ❝ 2045 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States B.2 2. The defense strategy facts 883 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States B.3 3. The jury’s verdicts facts 45 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States C C. Petitioners’ Direct Appeals facts 240 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States D.1 1. Innocence Protection Act claims facts 555 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States D.2 2. Yarborough’s ineffective assistance claim facts 251 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States D.3 3. Claims under Brady v. Maryland facts 2295 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States E E. The D.C. Superior Court’s Findings facts 1497 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States F F. The D.C. Court of Appeals Opinion facts 1196 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1212 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY EXISTS THAT THE OUTCOME OF P facts ❝ 672 — candidate
Turner v. United States, Overton v. United States A A. No Reasonable Probability Exists That Presentation facts 42 — candidate
Dean v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Dean v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1807 — candidate
Dean v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 893 — candidate
Dean v. United States THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY REJECTED PETITIONER’S INV facts 377 — candidate
Dean v. United States B B. The Sentencing Reform Act’s Provisions Confirm That facts 239 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 26 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 1228 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 651 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 829 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States SECTION 853 RENDERS DRUG CONSPIRATORS JOINTLY AND SEVE facts 197 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States B B. Under Traditional Principles Of Conspiracy Liabilit facts 82 — candidate
Honeycutt v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments For A Departure Fr facts 189 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 289 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii A A. Legal Framework facts 589 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii B.1 1. The January Order facts 233 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii B.2 2. The Order facts 906 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii C.1 1. The IRAP litigation (No. 16-1436) facts 939 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii C.2 2. The Hawaii litigation (No. 16-1540) facts 834 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii C.3 3. This Court’s June 26 ruling facts 234 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii C.4 4. The Hawaii district court’s modification of its inj facts 164 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 821 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii I I. RESPONDENTS’ CHALLENGES TO THE ORDER ARE NOT JUSTIC facts 84 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii I.B B. Respondents Cannot Assert Any Establishment Clause facts 210 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III III. THE ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE INA facts 69 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.A A. Sections 2(c), 6(a), And 6(b) Are Expressly Authori facts 77 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii III.B B. Section 2(c) Is Consistent With 8 U.S.C. 1152(a) facts 70 — candidate
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawaii IV IV. THE ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUS facts 151 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense statement STATEMENT facts 2287 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1503 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE CL facts 143 — candidate
National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense A A. The Clean Water Rule Is Subject To Direct Appellate facts 17 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 99 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1773 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 981 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States I I. MATERIALITY IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF 18 U.S.C. 1425(a) facts 208 — candidate
Maslenjak v. United States II II. PETITIONER’S CLAIM THAT MATERIALITY IS AN ELEMENT facts 107 — candidate
Lee v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 62 — candidate
Lee v. United States A A. Petitioner’s Offense And Conviction facts 1298 — candidate
Lee v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Collateral Challenge To His Conviction facts 1345 — candidate
Lee v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 681 — candidate
Lee v. United States PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW PREJUDICE FROM HIS GUILTY PL facts 276 — candidate
Lee v. United States I I. A SHOWING OF STRICKLAND PREJUDICE REQUIRES PROOF TH facts 126 — candidate
Lee v. United States II II. A PADILLA CLAIMANT WHO LACKS AN OBJECTIVELY VIABLE facts 78 — candidate
Lee v. United States III III. PETITIONER CANNOT SHOW THAT HE HAD A STRATEGICALL facts 117 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board A.1 1. The Merit Systems Protection Board facts 812 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board A.2 2. Mixed cases facts ❝ 1305 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board B B. Petitioner’s Case facts 1175 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 716 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board I I. THE CSRA CHANNELS JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MSPB APPEALABI facts ❝ 208 — candidate
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board II II. PETITIONER’S APPROACH TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IS UNSOUN facts 186 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States A A. Cell-Site Records And The Stored Communications Act facts 631 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 1533 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 848 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States I I. THE GOVERNMENT’S ACQUISITION OF PROVIDERS’ BUSINESS facts 167 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States I.A.2 Figure 2 – Illustrative map of buildings in the area facts 1224 — candidate
Carpenter v. United States II II. IF THE GOVERNMENT’S ACQUISITION OF CELL-SITE RECOR facts 161 — candidate
Class v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Class v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2193 — candidate
Class v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1061 — candidate
Class v. United States PETITIONER’S APPELLATE CHALLENGE TO HIS STATUTE OF CON facts 524 — candidate
Class v. United States B B. Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) Require facts 171 — candidate
Class v. United States C C. An Unconditional Guilty Plea Inherently Relinquishe facts 111 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 190 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke statement STATEMENT facts 2406 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 717 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke SECTION 2(b) OF THE GUN LAKE ACT IS A VALID EXERCISE O facts 644 — candidate
Patchak v. Zinke C C. Section 2(b) Does Not Offend Constitutional Separat facts 311 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission statement STATEMENT facts 2023 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 922 — candidate
Kokesh v. Securities & Exchange Commission argument ARGUMENT facts 187 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch statement STATEMENT facts 1952 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1245 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch UNDER THE CATEGORICAL APPROACH, PETITIONER’S CALIFORNI facts 176 — candidate
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch A A. Step One: Interpreting “Sexual Abuse Of A Minor” facts 151 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 226 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal statement STATEMENT facts 2972 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1186 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal I I. THE USPTO PROPERLY DETERMINES ON A CLAIMBY-CLAIM BA facts 247 — candidate
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal I.B B. The AIA Authorizes The USPTO To Institute Review As facts 50 — candidate
Marinello v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Marinello v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2187 — candidate
Marinello v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 907 — candidate
Marinello v. United States AN ENDEAVOR TO OBSTRUCT THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF THE facts 138 — candidate
Marinello v. United States II II. PETITIONER IDENTIFIES NO BASIS IN THE TEXT OR HIST facts 110 — candidate
Marinello v. United States DO NOT SUPPORT HIS INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7212(a) facts 98 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 35 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap A A. Legal Framework facts ❝ 797 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap B B. Facts And Procedural History facts ❝ 721 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1266 — candidate
Nielsen v. Preap CRIMINAL ALIENS DO NOT BECOME EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DE facts 57 — candidate
Byrd v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
Byrd v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1973 — candidate
Byrd v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 524 — candidate
Byrd v. United States PETITIONER HAD NO FOURTH AMENDMENT INTEREST IN A RENTA facts 96 — candidate
Byrd v. United States B B. Neither Property Rights Nor Societal Expectations S facts 102 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 154 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. A A. Credit-Card Networks Compete For Both Cardholders A facts 572 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. B B. Amex Strengthens Its Anti-Steering Rules In Respons facts ❝ 487 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. C C. The District Court Holds That Amex’s Anti-Steering facts 1445 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. D D. The Court Of Appeals Reverses facts 471 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1090 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. THE FACTS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT ESTABLISH A PRIM facts 421 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. B B. The Facts Found By The District Court Establish Tha facts 122 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. C C. The Court Of Appeals’ Alternative Market Definition facts 197 — candidate
Ohio v. American Express Co. D D. The Additional Showings Demanded By The Court Of Ap facts 124 — candidate
Lagos v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
Lagos v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2765 — candidate
Lagos v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 859 — candidate
Lagos v. United States THE MVRA REQUIRED PETITIONER TO PAY RESTITUTION FOR GE facts 225 — candidate
Lagos v. United States B B. GE Capital’s Investigatory And Legal Expenses Are R facts 83 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 12 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC statement STATEMENT facts 2254 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1189 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC argument ARGUMENT facts 123 — candidate
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC I I. INTER PARTES REVIEW IS CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE III facts 200 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 590 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 1539 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 733 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States A FORFEITED GUIDELINES CALCULATION ERROR DOES NOT WARR facts 281 — candidate
Rosales-Mireles v. United States B B. A Presumption That Guidelines Calculation Errors Sa facts 132 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 140 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States A A. The Court-Martial System facts 821 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States B B. The Military-Commission System And The Court Of Mil facts 610 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States C C. The al-Nashiri Litigation facts 728 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States D.1 1. Dalmazzi and Cox facts 283 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States D.2 2. Ortiz facts 335 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 880 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States I I. PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER 10 U.S facts 230 — candidate
Dalmazzi v. United States/Cox v. United States/Ortiz v. United States I.A A. Section 973(b) Does Not Prohibit Military Officers facts 78 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 23 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n statement STATEMENT facts 2257 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 874 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n argument ARGUMENT facts 211 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n I I. THE COMMISSION’S ALJs ARE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS S facts 192 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n I.B B. The Commission’s ALJs Exercise “Significant Authori facts 191 — candidate
Lucia v. Securities Exch. Comm'n II II. STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON REMOVAL OF THE COMMISSIO facts 184 — candidate
Hughes v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 128 — candidate
Hughes v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2662 — candidate
Hughes v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1248 — candidate
Hughes v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 280 — candidate
Hughes v. United States I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT PETI facts 67 — candidate
Hughes v. United States I.B B. The Court of Appeals Correctly Applied The Principl facts 163 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II II. DEFENDANTS WHO PLEAD GUILTY IN EXCHANGE FOR SPECIF facts 94 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.B B. Defendants Who Plead Guilty In Exchange For Specifi facts 43 — candidate
Hughes v. United States II.D D. Using Section 3582(c)(2) To Reduce A Sentence That facts 66 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 44 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. statement STATEMENT facts 2858 — candidate
United States v. Microsoft Corp. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 958 — candidate
Washington v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 192 — candidate
Washington v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 3699 — candidate
Washington v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 967 — candidate
Washington v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 87 — candidate
Washington v. United States A A. The “Right Of Taking Fish,” Reserved To The Tribes facts 263 — candidate
Washington v. United States B B. The Courts Below Properly Rejected The State’s Equi facts 92 — candidate
Washington v. United States C C. The Injunction Provides Appropriate Relief To Redre facts 112 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 33 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez statement STATEMENT facts 2986 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 869 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez THE NINTH CIRCUIT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY INVALIDATI facts 161 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez A A. The Ninth Circuit Lacked Statutory Authority For It facts 84 — candidate
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez B B. Respondents’ Claims Had Become Moot Before The Nint facts 123 — candidate
Dahda v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Dahda v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2566 — candidate
Dahda v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 853 — candidate
Dahda v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 144 — candidate
Dahda v. United States B B. Suppression Is Unwarranted Because The Mistake In T facts 71 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 154 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions statement STATEMENT facts 3884 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 952 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions SERVICE ON AN ALIEN OF A NOTICE TO APPEAR STOPS HIS AC facts 270 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions A A. The Board’s Conclusion That The Omission In A Notic facts 72 — candidate
Pereira v. Sessions B B. The Board’s Reasonable Interpretation Of The StopTi facts 337 — candidate
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 35 — candidate
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2282 — candidate
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1265 — candidate
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 19 — candidate
Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. United States A A. The RRTA’s Definition Of Taxable “Compensation” Enc facts 128 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2475 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 832 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States DISTRICT COURTS NEED NOT PROVIDE AN EXTENSIVE EXPLANAT facts ❝ 141 — candidate
Chavez-Meza v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Proposed Explanation Requirement Lacks facts 63 — candidate
Koons v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 104 — candidate
Koons v. United States A A. Initial Proceedings facts 146 — candidate
Koons v. United States B B. Sentence Reduction Proceedings facts 1237 — candidate
Koons v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 633 — candidate
Koons v. United States THE STATUTORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR PETITIONERS’ OFFEN facts 206 — candidate
Koons v. United States B B. The Substantial-Assistance Departures That Petition facts 134 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 93 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez statement STATEMENT facts 3768 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 854 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez II II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ITS ANALYSIS OF INTENT facts 195 — candidate
Abbott v. Perez II.C C. This Court Should Reject The Basis For The District facts 115 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 31 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims A A. Legal Background facts 813 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims B.1 1. Offense conduct and initial proceedings facts 410 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims B.2 2. En banc proceedings facts 1067 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims C C. Proceedings In Sims, No. 17-766 facts 494 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 793 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims BURGLARY OF A NONPERMANENT OR MOBILE STRUCTURE THAT IS facts 175 — candidate
United States v. Stitt/United States v. Sims A A. Taylor’s Definition Of Generic “Burglary” Encompass facts 125 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 236 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii A A. Legal Framework facts 430 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii B B. The Executive Orders And Proclamation facts 1386 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii C C. Procedural History facts 596 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii D D. Related Litigation facts 297 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 788 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii I I. RESPONDENTS’ CHALLENGE TO THE PROCLAMATION IS NOT J facts 59 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II II. THE PROCLAMATION IS A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE PRESI facts 117 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.A A. The Proclamation Is Authorized By 8 U.S.C. 1182(f ) facts 36 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii II.B B. The Proclamation Is Consistent With 8 U.S.C. 1152(a facts 109 — candidate
Trump v. Hawaii III III. THE PROCLAMATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHME facts 112 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 88 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n statement STATEMENT facts 2526 — candidate
Lorenzo v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 874 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 62 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill A.1 1. Administrative Adjudication facts 1711 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill A.2 2. Judicial Review facts 110 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill B.1 1. Administrative Proceedings facts 1782 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill B.2 2. Judicial Review facts 369 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1038 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill I I. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD CONTAINS “SUBSTANTIAL EVI facts 331 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill I.C C. Petitioner Misreads Richardson v. Perales And Ident facts 89 — candidate
Biestek v. Berryhill II II. THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE WERE F facts 452 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. statement STATEMENT facts 2619 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1031 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. THE GENERAL WAIVER OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN THE TVA AC facts 172 — candidate
Thacker v. Tennesse Valley Auth. B B. The TVA Act’s Sue-And-Be-Sued Clause, Read In Light facts 154 — candidate
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 200 — candidate
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP statement STATEMENT facts 2433 — candidate
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 540 — candidate
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP ENFORCEMENT OF A SECURITY INTEREST THROUGH A NONJUDICI facts 142 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 200 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. statement STATEMENT facts 3398 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1240 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. I I. SECTION 1395hh(a)(2) DID NOT REQUIRE NOTICEAND-COMM facts 347 — candidate
Azar v. Allina Health Servs. I.A A. The Notice-And-Comment Procedures In Section 1395hh facts 93 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 127 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. A A. Legal Background facts 2205 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. B B. The Present Controversy facts 1159 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 906 — candidate
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. A FEDERAL AGENCY IS A “PERSON” WHO MAY FILE A PETITION facts 190 — candidate
Smith v. Berryhill question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 239 — candidate
Smith v. Berryhill A A. Statutory And Regulatory Background facts 1899 — candidate
Smith v. Berryhill B B. Proceedings In This Case facts 1949 — candidate
Smith v. Berryhill summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 978 — candidate
Smith v. Berryhill A SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS COUNCIL ORDER DISMISSING A R facts 384 — candidate
United States v. Haymond question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 69 — candidate
United States v. Haymond A A. Respondent’s Offense Conduct And Jury Trial facts 229 — candidate
United States v. Haymond B.1 1. Imposition of supervised release facts 553 — candidate
United States v. Haymond B.2 2. Conditions of supervised release facts 451 — candidate
United States v. Haymond B.3 3. Consequences for violating the conditions of superv facts 761 — candidate
United States v. Haymond C C. Respondent’s Reimprisonment For Violating The Condi facts 610 — candidate
United States v. Haymond D D. Respondent’s Appeal Of His Supervised-Release Revoc facts 1241 — candidate
United States v. Haymond summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1001 — candidate
United States v. Haymond I I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S ADMINISTRATION OF RESPONDENT’S facts 127 — candidate
United States v. Haymond I.A A. The Constitutional Right To A Jury Finding Beyond A facts 127 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 60 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 4321 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 852 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie argument ARGUMENT facts 224 — candidate
Gray v. Wilkie A A. The Waterways Provision Is Not Reviewable Under The facts 497 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. statement STATEMENT facts 1420 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 897 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. I I. THE HOBBS ACT BARRED PETITIONERS FROM COLLATERALLY facts 91 — candidate
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropratic, Inc. I.B B. Petitioners’ Contrary Arguments Lack Merit facts 69 — candidate
Stokeling v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 57 — candidate
Stokeling v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1393 — candidate
Stokeling v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 638 — candidate
Stokeling v. United States PETITIONER’S FLORIDA ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS A CONVICTI facts 246 — candidate
Gundy v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 26 — candidate
Gundy v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2571 — candidate
Gundy v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 553 — candidate
Gundy v. United States I I. SORNA DELEGATED NONLEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE EXECUTI facts 232 — candidate
Gundy v. United States I.B B. SORNA Comports With This Court’s Precedent Because facts 102 — candidate
Gundy v. United States THAT THE COURT SHOULD APPLY A SPECIAL, HEIGHTENED NOND facts 300 — candidate
Gamble v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 27 — candidate
Gamble v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1168 — candidate
Gamble v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 626 — candidate
Gamble v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 178 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I I. THIS COURT HAS CORRECTLY RECOGNIZED THAT STATE AND facts 166 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.A A. The Transgression Of One Sovereign’s Law Is Not The facts 55 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.C C. This Court’s Precedent Accords With The Framing-Era facts 110 — candidate
Gamble v. United States I.C.2 2. Framing-Era law is consistent with a sovereignspeci facts 32 — candidate
Gamble v. United States II II. NO SOUND REASON EXISTS TO OVERTURN 170 YEARS OF PR facts 37 — candidate
Gamble v. United States II.A A. Petitioner Has Not Justified Discarding This Court’ facts 154 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 85 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. statement STATEMENT facts 3997 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 432 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I I. THE SERVICE PROPERLY DESIGNATED UNIT 1 AS UNOCCUPIE facts 48 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.A A. Unit 1 Contains “Habitat” For The Dusky Gopher Frog facts 158 — candidate
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. I.B B. Unit 1 Is “Essential For The Conservation Of The Sp facts 224 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill A.1 1. Fees for Administrative Proceedings facts 592 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill A.2 2. Fees for Court Proceedings facts 454 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill A.3 3. Direct Payment to an Attorney for the Claimant’s Fe facts 431 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill B B. Proceedings In This Case facts ❝ 926 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 293 — candidate
Culbertson v. Berryhill THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY IMPOSING A 25% CAP ON TH facts 158 — candidate
Quarles v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 67 — candidate
Quarles v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1514 — candidate
Quarles v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1054 — candidate
Quarles v. United States FORMING THE INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME WHILE UNLAWFULLY facts 255 — candidate
Quarles v. United States A A. An Intruder Who Decides To Commit A Crime While Rem facts 76 — candidate
Quarles v. United States C C. Petitioner’s “Initial Moment” Rule Is Unsupported A facts 76 — candidate
Mont v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 57 — candidate
Mont v. United States A A. Petitioner’s Offense Conduct And Sentence facts 224 — candidate
Mont v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Post-Release Supervision And Conduct facts 1144 — candidate
Mont v. United States C C. Petitioner’s State Guilty Plea And Delayed Sentenci facts 457 — candidate
Mont v. United States D D. Petitioner’s Supervised-Release-Violation Proceedin facts 744 — candidate
Mont v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 856 — candidate
Mont v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 181 — candidate
Mont v. United States I I. SECTION 3624(e) TOLLS A TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE facts 194 — candidate
Mont v. United States I.B B. Prolonged Incarceration For A Separate Criminal Off facts 93 — candidate
Mont v. United States II II. THE DISTRICT COURT HAD AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE PET facts 164 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 37 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A.1 1. The authorities of the National Park Service facts 378 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A.2 2. ANILCA and its predecessors facts ❝ 1382 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A.3 3. Regulation of navigable waters in the National Park facts 702 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A.4 4. Current regulation of navigable waters in the Natio facts 179 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost B B. Proceedings In This Case facts 785 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1883 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost THE PARK SERVICE MAY REGULATE ACTIVITIES ON THE NAVIGA facts 322 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost A A. Park Service Rules Governing Conduct On Navigable W facts 37 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost B B. In Any Event, The Park Service May Enforce Regulati facts 40 — candidate
Sturgeon v. Frost C C. Surrounding Provisions Of ANILCA Confirm That Secti facts 121 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States A A. Petitioner’s Offenses facts 1011 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States B B. District Court Proceedings facts 447 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States C C. Court of Appeals Proceedings facts 357 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1162 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 238 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I I. THE KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENT OF 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2) AP facts 225 — candidate
Rehaif v. United States I.B B. A Person “Knowingly Violates” Section 922(g) If He facts 100 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 24 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie A A. Historical Background facts 1270 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie B B. The Present Controversy facts 1296 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 673 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie argument ARGUMENT facts 164 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I I. SEMINOLE ROCK AND AUER SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AND NARR facts 174 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I.A A. Seminole Rock Deference Raises Serious Concerns facts 73 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie I.B B. Seminole Rock Deference Should Be Subject To Certai facts 201 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie II II. APPROPRIATELY LIMITED, SEMINOLE ROCK AND AUER SHOU facts 92 — candidate
Kisor v. Wilkie II.A A. Stare Decisis Counsels Against Overruling Seminole facts 74 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 64 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti statement STATEMENT facts 2541 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 756 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti THE SCANDALOUS-MARKS PROVISION IN 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) IS facts 318 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti B B. Because The Scandalous-Marks Provision Is A Viewpoi facts 335 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti C C. The Scandalous-Marks Provision Is Reasonably Relate facts ❝ 200 — candidate
Iancu v. Brunetti D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Contrary Reasoning Is Erroneo facts 15 — candidate
United States v. Davis question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 42 — candidate
United States v. Davis A A. Respondents’ Offense Conduct facts 877 — candidate
United States v. Davis B B. Respondents’ Criminal Prosecution facts 616 — candidate
United States v. Davis C C. Respondents’ Initial Appeal And Petitions For Writs facts 1055 — candidate
United States v. Davis D D. The Court Of Appeals’ Decision On Remand facts 365 — candidate
United States v. Davis summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1057 — candidate
United States v. Davis argument ARGUMENT facts 224 — candidate
United States v. Davis I I. THE DEFINITION OF A “CRIME OF VIOLENCE” IN 18 U.S.C facts 182 — candidate
United States v. Davis I.A A. Section 924(c)(3)(B) Is Best Read To Require A Circ facts 79 — candidate
United States v. Davis I.B B. Congress’s Restriction Of Section 924(c)(3)(B) To T facts 214 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 78 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court statement STATEMENT facts 3317 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1122 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. United States Dist. Court argument ARGUMENT facts 628 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 149 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. A A. Legal Background facts 1694 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. B B. The Present Controversy facts 1388 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 760 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. I I. A DISAPPOINTED PATENT APPLICANT WHO FILES A CIVIL A facts 264 — candidate
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. II II. THE AMERICAN RULE ON FEE-SHIFTING DOES NOT REQUIRE facts 171 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 108 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York statement STATEMENT facts 2603 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1264 — candidate
Department of Commerce v. New York I.E E. The Secretary’s Decision Was In Accordance With Law facts 43 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 128 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. statement STATEMENT facts 1066 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 783 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. argument ARGUMENT facts 134 — candidate
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. I I. BENEFICIARIES OF AN OVERFUNDED ERISA DEFINEDBENEFIT facts 403 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 240 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States A.1 1. The ACA’s expansion of coverage in the individual h facts 181 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States A.2 2. The ACA’s premium-stabilization programs facts 504 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States A.3 3. Congress’s funding decisions for risk corridors facts 973 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States B.1 1. Petitioners’ allegations and the trial court’s ruli facts 211 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States B.2 2. The court of appeals’ decisions facts 670 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 839 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I I. THE AGENCY’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUNDING RESTRICTIO facts 155 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I.A A. The ACA Did Not Impose An Obligation, Enforceable T facts 327 — candidate
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States; Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States I.B B. Congress’s Subsequent Appropriations Legislation Su facts 71 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n statement STATEMENT facts 2596 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 710 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n TITLE VII DOES NOT PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRA facts 388 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n A A. Title VII Does Not Prohibit Discrimination Against facts 132 — candidate
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n B B. Discrimination Against Transgender Persons Does Not facts 64 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. A A. Statutory And Regulatory Background facts 2060 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. B B. Proceedings In This Case facts 2111 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 950 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE TAX REFUN facts 665 — candidate
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. B B. Under Federal Law, A Corporate Parent’s Receipt Of facts 114 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC statement STATEMENT facts 1739 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 823 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC argument ARGUMENT facts 271 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC I I. THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE DOES NOT GOVERN THE SELECTI facts 36 — candidate
Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of All Title III Debtors v. Aurelius Inv., LLC/United States v. Aurelius Inv., LLC II II. THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE OFFICERS OF THE TERRI facts 235 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 115 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr A A. Statutory Background facts 1510 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr B B. Prior Proceedings facts 1414 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 689 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr SECTION 1252(a)(2)(C) PRECLUDES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ANY facts 231 — candidate
Nasrallah v. Barr A A. The Criminal-Alien Jurisdictional Bar Limits Judici facts 713 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 24 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n statement STATEMENT facts 890 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 460 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n I I. A COURT MAY AWARD DISGORGEMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION BR facts 227 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n I.B B. The Statutory Context Confirms That Disgorgement Is facts 106 — candidate
Liu v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n II.A A. Petitioners’ Legal Arguments Lack Merit facts 93 — candidate
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n/Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 183 — candidate
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n/Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n statement STATEMENT facts 3741 — candidate
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n/Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 678 — candidate
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n/Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n THE FOREST SERVICE HAS AUTHORITY UNDER 30 U.S.C. 185 T facts 194 — candidate
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n/Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n B B. The Trails Act Does Not Convert National Forest Lan facts 189 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 82 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 3945 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 922 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. THE SAFE BERTH CLAUSE IS A WARRANTY OF SAFETY, NOT MER facts 108 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. B B. Longstanding Judicial And Arbitral Interpretations facts 267 — candidate
CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. C C. Policy Considerations Support The Longstanding Warr facts 99 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 140 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal A A. Legal Framework facts 410 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal B B. Factual Background facts 788 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal C.1 1. District courts enjoin or vacate the rescission on facts 375 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal C.2 2. Secretary Nielsen further explains the rescission facts 411 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal C.3 3. The D.C. district court declines to reconsider its facts 203 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal C.4 4. The Ninth Circuit affirms the nationwide preliminar facts 356 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 351 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal argument ARGUMENT facts 258 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal I I. DACA’S RESCISSION IS NOT JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE UNDE facts 65 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal II II. DACA’S RESCISSION IS LAWFUL facts 173 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal./Trump v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People/McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal II.B B. The Rescission Is Reasonable In Light Of DHS’s Addi facts 95 — candidate
Shular v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
Shular v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1957 — candidate
Shular v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 828 — candidate
Shular v. United States A STATE DRUG OFFENSE NEED NOT MATCH THE ELEMENTS OF A facts 178 — candidate
Barton v. Barr question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 138 — candidate
Barton v. Barr statement STATEMENT facts 1689 — candidate
Barton v. Barr summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 582 — candidate
Barton v. Barr C C. Neither Of Petitioner’s Alternative Interpretations facts 79 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 41 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States A.1 1. Imposition of a sentence facts 797 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States A.2 2. Revocation of supervised release facts 513 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States B B. Factual And Procedural Background facts 1085 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT facts 817 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT WHO ADVOCATED FOR A SHORTER TERM facts 268 — candidate
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States B B. A Specific Request For A Lower Sentence Can Satisfy facts 94 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 42 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr A A. Statutory Background facts 726 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr B B. Ovalles facts 1195 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr C C. Guerrero-Lasprilla facts 1504 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 662 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr WHETHER PETITIONERS EXERCISED REASONABLE DILIGENCE FOR facts 268 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr B B. Even If The Phrase “Questions Of Law” Encompassed S facts 69 — candidate
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr; Ovalles v. Barr C C. Petitioners’ Counterarguments Lack Merit facts 60 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 60 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie A A. Legal Framework facts 1347 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie B B. Factual Background facts 792 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie C C. Procedural History facts 432 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 809 — candidate
Babb v. Wilkie argument ARGUMENT facts 191 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP A A. Statutory Background facts 1138 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP B B. The Present Controversy facts 1423 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 972 — candidate
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP THE USPTO’S DETERMINATION WHETHER A PETITION FOR INTER facts 110 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 44 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels A.1 1. Sexual assault in the military facts 716 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels A.2 2. Penalties for rape in the military facts 603 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels A.3 3. The statute of limitations for rape under the UCMJ facts 826 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels B.1 1. United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 facts ❝ 581 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels B.2 2. United States v. Collins, No. 19-184 facts 938 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels B.3 3. United States v. Daniels, No. 19-184 facts 579 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 618 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels argument ARGUMENT facts 202 — candidate
United States v. Briggs/United States v. Collins/United States v. Daniels I I. RESPONDENTS’ RAPES WERE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION AT A facts 101 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 158 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam A A. Legal Framework facts 2079 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam B B. Factual Background facts 588 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam C C. Procedural History facts 781 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 932 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam argument ARGUMENT facts 141 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam I I. THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE DOES NOT GUARANTEE JUDICIAL R facts 122 — candidate
Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam I.B B. Respondent’s Claims Fall Outside The Historical Cor facts 252 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 93 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. A A. Statutory Background facts 1175 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. B B. Prior Proceedings facts 2283 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 875 — candidate
United States Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. THE LEADERSHIP ACT’S FUNDING CONDITIONS MAY CONSTITUTI facts 301 — candidate
Salinas v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
Salinas v. United States A A. Legal Framework facts 1531 — candidate
Salinas v. United States B B. Procedural History facts 1153 — candidate
Salinas v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 992 — candidate
Salinas v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 120 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I I. REOPENING DECISIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REV facts 30 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.A A. Section 355(f ) Is Limited To Final Decisions Under facts 76 — candidate
Salinas v. United States I.C C. Additional Structural Features Of Both Statutes Con facts 87 — candidate
Salinas v. United States II II. PETITIONER’S REMAINING COUNTERARGUMENTS LACK MERIT facts 59 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 229 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania A A. Statutory And Regulatory Background facts 633 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania B B. Prior Litigation facts 549 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania C C. Proceedings Below facts 975 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 742 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania argument ARGUMENT facts 255 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania I I. THE AGENCIES HAD STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE E facts 38 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania II II. THE FINAL RULES ARE PROCEDURALLY VALID facts 25 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania II.A A. The Final Rules Comply With The APA’s Procedural Re facts 75 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania II.B B. The Interim Rules Were Procedurally Valid facts 64 — candidate
Trump v. Pennsylvania III III. AT A MINIMUM, THIS COURT SHOULD VACATE THE NATION facts 214 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. A A. Legal Framework facts 1313 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. B B. The Present Controversy facts 1721 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 735 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. APPENDING A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN LIKE “.COM” TO A GENERIC facts 224 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. B B. Sound Trademark Policy Supports The Conclusion That facts 97 — candidate
United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. C C. Respondent’s Teflon Survey Does Not Provide A Sound facts 196 — candidate
Borden v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 54 — candidate
Borden v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1472 — candidate
Borden v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 805 — candidate
Borden v. United States PETITIONER’S THIRD TENNESSEE AGGRAVATEDASSAULT CONVICT facts 176 — candidate
Borden v. United States A A. An Offense That Requires Reckless Causation Of Bodi facts 47 — candidate
Borden v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Reading Of The ACCA’s Elements Clause facts 63 — candidate
Brownback v. King question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 211 — candidate
Brownback v. King A A. Legal Framework facts 900 — candidate
Brownback v. King B B. The Present Controversy facts 2099 — candidate
Brownback v. King summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1032 — candidate
Brownback v. King AN FTCA CLAIMANT WHO FAILS TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY facts 172 — candidate
Brownback v. King A A. The Judgment Bar Applies When An FTCA Plaintiff Fai facts 28 — candidate
Brownback v. King B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Refusing To Apply The facts 219 — candidate
Brownback v. King C C. Respondent’s Alternative Arguments Lack Merit facts 24 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 66 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. A A. Legal Framework facts 1208 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. B B. The Present Controversy facts 2627 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1125 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE THROUGH FOIA EXEMPT facts 82 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. B B. The Services’ Discussion Drafts Prepared During The facts 217 — candidate
United States Fish & Wildlife v. Sierra Club, Inc. C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred By Refusing To Sustain T facts 120 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 226 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. A A. Statutory Background facts 1279 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. B B. Facts And Procedural History facts 558 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 673 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. argument ARGUMENT facts 228 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. I I. THE GOVERNMENT-DEBT EXCEPTION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE facts 268 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. I.A A. The Government-Debt Exception Is Not Content-Based facts 96 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. I.B B. The Government-Debt Exception Satisfies First Amend facts 89 — candidate
Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. II II. IF THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT-DEBT EXCEPT facts 82 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith A A. Statutory Background facts 780 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith B B. Respondent’s Offense Conduct facts 467 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith C C. District Court Proceedings facts 527 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith D D. Appellate Proceedings facts 434 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 749 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith B B. The Text, Context, And History Of Section 1324(a)(1 facts 179 — candidate
United States v. Sineneng-Smith C C. Respondent’s Crime Of Conviction Has A Plainly Legi facts 142 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 70 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau statement STATEMENT facts 1438 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 437 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau argument ARGUMENT facts 265 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I I. THE STATUTORY RESTRICTION ON THE PRESIDENT’S ABILIT facts 484 — candidate
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau I.A A. As A General Rule, The President Must Possess Unres facts 33 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 22 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2596 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 858 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir RFRA DOES NOT AUTHORIZE DAMAGES AWARDS AGAINST FEDERAL facts 104 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir A A. Damages Awards Are Not “Appropriate Relief ” In RFR facts 65 — candidate
Tanzin v. Tanvir B B. The Counterarguments Lack Merit facts 151 — candidate
State of California v. State of Texas/State of Texas v. State of California question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 82 — candidate
State of California v. State of Texas/State of Texas v. State of California statement STATEMENT facts 2445 — candidate
State of California v. State of Texas/State of Texas v. State of California summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 499 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 91 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez A A. Statutory Background facts 852 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez B.1 1. Dai facts 2428 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez B.2 2. Alcaraz-Enriquez facts 856 — candidate
Barr v. Dai/Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 729 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 187 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab A A. Legal Framework facts 1338 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab B B. Factual Background facts 1044 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab C C. Procedural History facts 1222 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 967 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab argument ARGUMENT facts 170 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab I I. MPP IS A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY facts 25 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab I.B B. The Court Of Appeals’ Statutory Analysis Was Mistak facts 116 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab II II. MPP IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY APPLICABLE AND ENFORCEA facts 85 — candidate
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab IV IV. THE UNIVERSAL INJUNCTION IS OVERBROAD facts 152 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 212 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project A A. Statutory Background facts 394 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project B B. 2002 Biennial Review facts 615 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project C C. 2006 Quadrennial Review facts 531 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project D D. 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Reviews facts ❝ 1790 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1038 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project I I. THE FCC HAS BROAD STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE M facts 51 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project II II. IN FASHIONING THE ORDERS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, TH facts 87 — candidate
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project III III. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ CONTRARY HOLDING REFLECTS S facts 109 — candidate
Department of Justice v. House Comm. on the Judiciary question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 22 — candidate
Department of Justice v. House Comm. on the Judiciary statement STATEMENT facts 2610 — candidate
Department of Justice v. House Comm. on the Judiciary summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 883 — candidate
Department of Justice v. House Comm. on the Judiciary AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEFORE A LEGISLATIVE BODY IS NOT facts 167 — candidate
United States v. Cooley question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 46 — candidate
United States v. Cooley statement STATEMENT facts 3106 — candidate
United States v. Cooley summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 903 — candidate
United States v. Cooley TRIBAL OFFICERS MAY REASONABLY INVESTIGATE AND DETAIN facts 152 — candidate
United States v. Cooley A A. Tribes Retain Inherent Authority To Reasonably Prot facts 74 — candidate
United States v. Cooley B B. The Ninth Circuit’s Approach Is Legally Incorrect A facts 157 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 91 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. A A. Statutory Background facts 1088 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. B B. The Present Controversy facts 1299 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 863 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES ARE INFERIOR OFFICERS WHO facts 230 — candidate
United States v. Arthrex, Inc./Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc./Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. C C. The Federal Circuit’s Contrary Conclusion Is Incorr facts 75 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul A A. Legal Framework facts 471 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul B B. Appointment Of Social Security ALJs facts 683 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul C C. Proceedings Below facts 425 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 606 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul I I. PETITIONERS FORFEITED THEIR APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE CLA facts 129 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul II II. PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS LACK MERIT facts 54 — candidate
Carr v. Saul/Davis v. Saul II.B B. Forfeiture Rules Apply To Social Security Cases facts 56 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 125 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid A A. Statutory and Regulatory Background facts 1264 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid B B. The Present Controversy facts 738 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1058 — candidate
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid UNDER THE TCPA, A DEVICE IS AN “AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE DI facts 244 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 218 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins A A. Factual Background facts 1497 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins B B. Proceedings Below facts 1662 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 807 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins argument ARGUMENT facts 247 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins I I. THE SUCCESSION CLAUSE BARS THE SHAREHOLDERS’ CHALLE facts 115 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins I.A A. The Shareholders’ Challenge To The Third Amendment facts 72 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins II II. THE ANTI-INJUNCTION CLAUSE ALSO BARS THE SHAREHOLD facts 134 — candidate
Mnuchin v. Collins II.A A. The Anti-Injunction Clause Bars The Shareholders’ C facts 126 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 59 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 1209 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States B B. Factual Background facts 1098 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States C C. Proceedings Below facts 492 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 925 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States PETITIONER “EXCEED[ED] AUTHORIZED ACCESS” BY SEARCHING facts 166 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States A A. Petitioner’s Forbidden Use Of His Computer Access T facts 92 — candidate
Van Buren v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Policy And Constitutional Arguments Ar facts 141 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 26 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr statement STATEMENT facts 2359 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 672 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr THE STOP-TIME RULE IS TRIGGERED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SE facts 238 — candidate
Niz-Chavez v. Barr A A. Under The Best Reading Of The Statute, The Stop-Tim facts 106 — candidate
Greer v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 64 — candidate
Greer v. United States A A. Petitioner’s Offense facts 368 — candidate
Greer v. United States B B. District Court Proceedings facts ❝ 938 — candidate
Greer v. United States C C. Appellate Proceedings facts 634 — candidate
Greer v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 838 — candidate
Greer v. United States THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DENIED PLAINERROR RELIE facts 205 — candidate
Greer v. United States B B. The Entire Record Is Relevant To Whether A Court Sh facts 103 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 31 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez A A. Legal Background facts ❝ 1349 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez B B. Proceedings Below facts 891 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 441 — candidate
Albence v. Guzman Chavez A A. Respondents’ Detention Is Governed By Section 1231( facts 111 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 198 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. A A. Statutory And Regulatory Background facts 1201 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. B B. IRS Notice 2016-66 facts 412 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. C C. The Present Controversy facts 970 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 914 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF PETITION facts 79 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. B B. Petitioner’s Contrary Interpretation Reflects A Mis facts 19 — candidate
CIC Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. C C. Neither The APA Nor Constitutional-Avoidance Princi facts 24 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 219 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club A A. Statutory Background facts 661 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club B B. The Challenged Transfers facts 694 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club C.1 1. Sierra Club v. Trump facts 1196 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club C.2 2. California v. Trump facts 890 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 707 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club I I. RESPONDENTS LACK ANY CAUSE OF ACTION TO OBTAIN JUDI facts 536 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club I.B B. Respondents Cannot Evade Their Failure To Satisfy T facts 131 — candidate
Trump v. Sierra Club II II. THE ACTING SECRETARY FULLY COMPLIED WITH SECTION 8 facts 301 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas A A. Statutory And Regulatory Background facts 1110 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas B B. The Present Controversy facts 794 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 764 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas USCIS LAWFULLY DETERMINED THAT RECIPIENTS OF TEMPORARY facts 165 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas A A. The Court Of Appeals Correctly Determined That USCI facts 35 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas C C. Petitioners’ Argument By Syllogism Is Flawed In Sev facts 89 — candidate
Sanchez v. Mayorkas D D. The Government’s Statutory Construction Is Reasonab facts 161 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 227 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York statement STATEMENT facts 2011 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 891 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York I I. THE RELIEF AWARDED FAILS TO SATISFY ARTICLE III’S R facts 414 — candidate
Trump v. State of New York II II. THE PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM IS LAWFUL UNDER THE ST facts 109 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 189 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham A.1 1. The Medicaid program facts 1272 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham A.2 2. Section 1315 demonstration projects facts 1628 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham B.1 1. The challenged demonstration projects facts 1004 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham B.2 2. Proceedings below facts 739 — candidate
Azar v. Gresham/State of Arkansas v. Gresham summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 521 — candidate
United States v. Palomar-Santiago question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 131 — candidate
United States v. Palomar-Santiago statement STATEMENT facts 1970 — candidate
United States v. Palomar-Santiago summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 783 — candidate
United States v. Palomar-Santiago AN UNLAWFUL-REENTRY DEFENDANT CANNOT COLLATERALLY ATTA facts 160 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 50 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi A A. Legal Background facts 2904 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi B B. Proceedings Below facts 1177 — candidate
Babcock v. Kijakazi summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 875 — candidate
Wooden v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 40 — candidate
Wooden v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1809 — candidate
Wooden v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 643 — candidate
Wooden v. United States PETITIONER’S 1997 BURGLARY CONVICTIONS ARE FOR OFFENSE facts 185 — candidate
Wooden v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Interpretation Of Section 924(e)(1) Is facts 167 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 198 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation A.1 1. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act facts 853 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation A.2 2. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assista facts 511 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation A.3 3. The CARES Act facts 290 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation B B. The Present Controversy facts 1348 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 722 — candidate
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation/Alaska Native Village Corp. Assoc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation argument ARGUMENT facts 490 — candidate
Terry v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 56 — candidate
Terry v. United States A.1 1. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 facts 1379 — candidate
Terry v. United States A.2 2. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 facts 825 — candidate
Terry v. United States A.3 3. The First Step Act of 2018 facts 282 — candidate
Terry v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts ❝ 1129 — candidate
Terry v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 963 — candidate
Terry v. United States PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE TO SEEK A REDUCED SENTENCE UNDE facts 261 — candidate
Terry v. United States A A. Petitioner Has A “Covered Offense” Under The Text O facts 308 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez A A. Legal Background facts ❝ 955 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez B B. Facts And Proceedings Below facts 444 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 345 — candidate
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez argument ARGUMENT facts 52 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 214 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation A A. Legal Background facts ❝ 4186 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation B B. The Present Controversy facts 906 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 702 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation I I. THE SECRETARY HAS PERMISSIBLY INCLUDED IN THE MEDIC facts 564 — candidate
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation I.A A. The Secretary’s Approach To The Medicare Fraction E facts 255 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 84 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 337 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States B.1 1. Ruan facts 1592 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States B.2 2. Kahn facts 1381 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 672 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 188 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I I. DISPENSING DRUGS WITHOUT ANY OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE facts 168 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.B B. The Wholly Subjective Views Of A Physician Who Has facts 77 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States I.C C. Petitioners’ Arguments For A Solely Subjective Defi facts 184 — candidate
Ruan v. United States/Kahn v. United States II II. PETITIONERS’ CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED facts 63 — candidate
United States v. Taylor question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 20 — candidate
United States v. Taylor statement STATEMENT facts 1685 — candidate
United States v. Taylor summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1033 — candidate
United States v. Taylor ATTEMPTED HOBBS ACT ROBBERY IS A “CRIME OF VIOLENCE” U facts 151 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 63 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA A A. The Clean Air Act facts 518 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA B B. The Clean Power Plan facts 586 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA C C. The CPP Repeal And Affordable Clean Energy Rules facts 411 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA D D. Proceedings Below facts 582 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 831 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA argument ARGUMENT facts 184 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA I I. PETITIONERS LACK STANDING TO INVOKE THIS COURT’S AP facts 291 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II II. THE CPP REPEAL AND ACE RULES RESTED ON AN ERRONEOU facts 125 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.A A. Section 7411 Does Not Unambiguously Compel The Inte facts 46 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.B B. Petitioners’ Text-Based Arguments Lack Merit facts 82 — candidate
West Virginia v. EPA II.C C. Petitioners’ Reliance On Various Interpretive Canon facts 32 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 61 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States A.1 1. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 facts ❝ 769 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States A.2 2. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 facts 404 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States A.3 3. The First Step Act of 2018 facts 274 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Conviction And Sentence facts 1835 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 895 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 231 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States I I. SECTION 404 OF THE FIRST STEP ACT LEAVES CONSIDERAT facts 64 — candidate
Concepcion v. United States I.B B. Section 404 Does Not Mandate A Resentencing That In facts 178 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 62 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez A A. Legal Background facts ❝ 1194 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez B.1 1. Aleman Gonzalez facts 706 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez B.2 2. Flores Tejada facts 502 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 946 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez I I. SECTION 1252(f )(1) BARRED THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF GR facts 186 — candidate
Garland v. Gonzalez II II. SECTION 1231(a)(6) DOES NOT REQUIRE BOND HEARINGS facts 52 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States A A. Historical Background facts 1702 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States B B. Factual Background And Proceedings Below facts 940 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 965 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States A VIOLATION OF TRIBAL LAW AND A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL L facts 298 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States A A. A Transgression Against Tribal Law Is Not The “Same facts 50 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Approach, Which Focuses On The Forum F facts 166 — candidate
Denezpi v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Attempted Application Of His ForumFocu facts 76 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 73 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate A A. Legal Background facts 545 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate B B. Facts And Proceedings Below facts 1164 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 483 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate I I. APPELLEES LACK ARTICLE III STANDING facts 160 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate I.A A. Appellees’ Injury Is Not Traceable To, And Would No facts 112 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II II. THE LOAN-REPAYMENT LIMIT COMPLIES WITH THE FIRST A facts 287 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.A A. The Loan-Repayment Limit Imposes At Most A Modest B facts 30 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.B B. Congress’s Compelling Interest In Preventing Actual facts 37 — candidate
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate II.C C. The District Court’s Contrary Analysis Is Flawed facts 18 — candidate
George v. McDonough question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 79 — candidate
George v. McDonough statement STATEMENT facts 4090 — candidate
George v. McDonough summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1239 — candidate
George v. McDonough THE BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS DID NOT COMMIT CLEAR AN facts 209 — candidate
George v. McDonough A A. Clear And Unmistakable Error Under 38 U.S.C. 7111 D facts 96 — candidate
United States v. State of Washington statement STATEMENT facts 1500 — candidate
United States v. State of Washington argument ARGUMENT facts 249 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 175 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough statement STATEMENT facts 2020 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1059 — candidate
Arellano v. McDonough I I. EQUITABLE TOLLING DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ONE-YEAR GR facts 62 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 91 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald statement STATEMENT facts 2744 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1098 — candidate
Siegel v. Fitzgerald CONGRESS DID NOT EXCEED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY I facts 223 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 27 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency A A. Statutory Background facts 1174 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency B B. The Present Controversy facts 1073 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency C C. Subsequent Regulatory Developments facts 361 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 881 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I I. THE MERE PRESENCE OF A BERM OR OTHER BARRIER DOES N facts 307 — candidate
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency II II. PETITIONERS’ RESTRICTIVE VIEW OF THE TRIBUTARIES C facts 184 — candidate
Kemp v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 23 — candidate
Kemp v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 348 — candidate
Kemp v. United States B B. Petitioner’s Conviction And Sentence facts 1785 — candidate
Kemp v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 550 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I I. A CLAIM THAT A DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO APPLY UNAMB facts 136 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I.B B. The History Of Rule 60(b)(1) Supports Its Plain Mea facts 84 — candidate
Kemp v. United States I.C C. Applying The Plain Meaning Of “Mistake” Follows The facts 42 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix statement STATEMENT facts 1142 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 856 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix argument ARGUMENT facts 650 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix I I. THE SAVING CLAUSE PRESERVES HABEAS RELIEF FOR PRISO facts 112 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix I.B B. The Saving Clause Permits Consideration Of Second o facts 175 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix II II. PETITIONER CANNOT RELY ON THE SAVING CLAUSE BECAUS facts 163 — candidate
Jones v. Hendrix IV IV. PETITIONER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE SAVING CLAUSE I facts 97 — candidate
Biden v. Texas question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 247 — candidate
Biden v. Texas A A. Legal Background facts 1031 — candidate
Biden v. Texas B B. The Present Controversy facts 1833 — candidate
Biden v. Texas summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 697 — candidate
Biden v. Texas argument ARGUMENT facts 149 — candidate
Biden v. Texas I I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE SECRETAR facts 166 — candidate
Biden v. Texas I.A A. Section 1225(b)(2)(C) Establishes A Discretionary B facts 26 — candidate
Biden v. Texas I.B B. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Concluding That DHS I facts 75 — candidate
Biden v. Texas II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SEC facts 196 — candidate
Percoco v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
Percoco v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2968 — candidate
Percoco v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 787 — candidate
Percoco v. United States PETITIONER COMMITTED HONEST-SERVICES FRAUD BY ACCEPTIN facts 158 — candidate
Percoco v. United States D D. The Jury Validly Found That Petitioner Owed The Pub facts 116 — candidate
Percoco v. United States E E. Applying Section 1346 To Petitioner’s Conduct Is Co facts 149 — candidate
Wilkins v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 29 — candidate
Wilkins v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2020 — candidate
Wilkins v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 645 — candidate
Wilkins v. United States A A. Section 2409a(g)’s 12-year Time Bar Warrants Jurisd facts 435 — candidate
Wilkins v. United States B B. Petitioners’ Contrary Arguments Lack Merit facts 184 — candidate
In re Grand Jury question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
In re Grand Jury statement STATEMENT facts 994 — candidate
In re Grand Jury summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 868 — candidate
In re Grand Jury THE LOWER COURTS CORRECTLY REJECTED PETITIONER’S ASSER facts 162 — candidate
In re Grand Jury A A. Advice About Tax-Return Preparation Is Not Privileg facts 43 — candidate
In re Grand Jury B B. The Longstanding Primary-Purpose Test For DualPurpo facts 136 — candidate
In re Grand Jury C C. Neither Logic Nor Precedent Favors Petitioner’s “Si facts 99 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 80 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland A.1 1. Judicial review of removal proceedings facts 766 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland A.2 2. Administrative review of removal proceedings facts 527 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland B B. Procedural History facts 1079 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 705 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland I I. SECTION 1252(d)(1)’S LIMITATION ON A COURT’S POWER facts 227 — candidate
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland II II. SECTION 1252(d)(1)’S EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT PRECLU facts 126 — candidate
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 37 — candidate
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 1178 — candidate
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1047 — candidate
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 289 — candidate
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States I I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER “ALL OFFENSE facts 129 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 52 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority A A. Statutory Background facts 2388 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority B B. Procedural History facts 1253 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 689 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority I I. THE ACT REQUIRES PETITIONERS TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAI facts 163 — candidate
The Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority II II. STATUTORY TEXT AND CONTEXT REFUTE PETITIONERS’ CON facts 204 — candidate
Smith v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 56 — candidate
Smith v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1318 — candidate
Smith v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 979 — candidate
Smith v. United States A VENUE ERROR REQUIRES VACATUR OF THE CONVICTION, NOT facts 78 — candidate
Smith v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit facts 17 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 205 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service A A. Statutory Background facts ❝ 858 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service B B. Factual And Procedural Background facts 1696 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 985 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service SECTION 7609(c)(2)(D)(i)’S NOTICE EXCEPTION APPLIES TO facts 143 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service A A. The Text Of Section 7609(c)(2)(D)(i)’s Notice Excep facts 112 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service B B. The Plain-Text Reading Of Section 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) facts 153 — candidate
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service C C. The Statutory History And Purpose Confirm That Sect facts 68 — candidate
Dubin v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
Dubin v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1436 — candidate
Dubin v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 639 — candidate
Dubin v. United States PETITIONER VIOLATED 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1) WHEN HE APPL facts 115 — candidate
Dubin v. United States A A. Section 1028A’s Text Encompasses Petitioner’s Condu facts 106 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 77 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation A A. Factual And Legal Background facts 2384 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation B B. Procedural History facts 1596 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 887 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I I. THE NAVAJO NATION’S BREACH-OF-TRUST CLAIM FAILS TO facts 359 — candidate
State of Arizona v. Navajo Nation/Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation I.C C. No Substantive Source Of Law Expressly Establishes facts 115 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 178 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy A A. Legal Background facts 979 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy B B. The Present Controversy facts 1065 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 821 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I I. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT OVERRULE HARDISON, BUT SHOULD facts 154 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy I.B B. Petitioner Fails To Offer The Special Justification facts 75 — candidate
Groff v. DeJoy II II. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT BURDENS O facts 79 — candidate
United States v. Hansen question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 34 — candidate
United States v. Hansen A A. Statutory Background facts 780 — candidate
United States v. Hansen B B. Respondent’s Offense Conduct facts 589 — candidate
United States v. Hansen C C. District Court Proceedings facts 512 — candidate
United States v. Hansen D D. Appellate Proceedings facts 904 — candidate
United States v. Hansen summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 713 — candidate
United States v. Hansen B B. The Text, Context, And History Of Section 1324(a)(1 facts 163 — candidate
United States v. Hansen C C. Respondent’s Crime Of Conviction Is Not Substantial facts 143 — candidate
Samia v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 60 — candidate
Samia v. United States statement STATEMENT facts ❝ 2013 — candidate
Samia v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 793 — candidate
Samia v. United States A.1 1. The presumption that jurors follow their instructio facts 496 — candidate
Samia v. United States A.2 2. Courts historically treated jury instructions as su facts ❝ 681 — candidate
Samia v. United States A.3 3. This Court’s later decisions created a narrow excep facts 1691 — candidate
Samia v. United States A.4 4. The district court correctly determined that the Br facts 903 — candidate
Samia v. United States B.1 1. The Bruton exception requires an “overwhelming prob facts 690 — candidate
Samia v. United States B.2 2. Petitioner’s proposed expansion of Bruton is incons facts 822 — candidate
Samia v. United States B.3 3. Petitioner’s approach would introduce the negative facts 1230 — candidate
Samia v. United States B.4 4. Petitioner identifies no meaningful policy justific facts 883 — candidate
Samia v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Convictions Should Stand In Any Event facts 857 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 20 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin statement STATEMENT facts 1266 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 730 — candidate
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin argument ARGUMENT facts 168 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 28 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia A A. Statutory Background facts 346 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia B B. Cordero-Garcia facts 1667 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia C C. Pugin facts 985 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 783 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia AN OFFENSE NEED NOT INVOLVE A PENDING OR ONGOING INVES facts 298 — candidate
Pugin v. Garland/Garland v. Cordero-Garcia B B. No Relevant Source Supports Interpreting “Obstructi facts 51 — candidate
Carnahan v. Maloney statement STATEMENT facts 226 — candidate
Carnahan v. Maloney argument ARGUMENT facts 99 — candidate
Lora v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 35 — candidate
Lora v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1171 — candidate
Lora v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 908 — candidate
Lora v. United States THE CONSECUTIVE-SENTENCING MANDATE IN 18 U.S.C. 924(c) facts 158 — candidate
Lora v. United States D D. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit facts 30 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 51 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA A A. Legal Background facts 811 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA B B. Procedural History facts 1157 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 890 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING INVALID THE CFPB facts 128 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA A A. Text, History, And Precedent Establish The Constitu facts 57 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA B B. The Contrary Arguments Offered By The Court Of Appe facts 106 — candidate
CFPB v. CFSA C C. At The Very Least, Any Appropriations Clause Violat facts 284 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown A A. The HEROES Act facts 1088 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown B B. HEROES Act Relief During The COVID-19 Pandemic facts 971 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown C C. Proceedings Below In Nebraska facts 649 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown D D. Proceedings Below In Brown facts 388 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown E E. The Secretary’s Extension Of The Payment Pause facts 169 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1423 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown I I. RESPONDENTS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING facts 230 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II II. THE SECRETARY’S PLAN IS LAWFUL facts 130 — candidate
Biden v. Nebraska/Department of Education v. Brown II.A A. The HEROES Act Authorizes The Plan facts 41 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 69 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana A A. Background facts 753 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana B B. Proceedings Below facts 486 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 937 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana I I. RESPONDENTS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING facts 228 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana II II. THE GUIDELINES ARE LAWFUL facts 47 — candidate
United States v. Texas & Louisiana III III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S REMEDY WAS UNLAWFUL facts 153 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 12 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas A A. CDC’s Title 42 Orders facts 771 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas B B. Private Respondents’ Suit And The Prior Appeal facts 173 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas C C. CDC’s 2022 Termination Of The Title 42 Orders facts 319 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas D D. Proceedings Below facts 891 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas E E. Further Developments facts ❝ 896 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 854 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas argument ARGUMENT facts 375 — candidate
Arizona v. Mayorkas C C. Petitioners Lack A Legally Cognizable Interest In T facts 95 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 79 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo A A. Statutory Background facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 475 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo B B. Regulatory Background facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 418 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo C C. The Present Controversy facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 449 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 724 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I I. THE COURT SHOULD NOT OVERRULE CHEVRON facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 304 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.A A. Chevron Is A Bedrock Principle Of Administrative La facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 147 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.B B. Stare Decisis Principles Weigh Heavily In Favor Of facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 294 — candidate
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo I.C C. Petitioners’ Remaining Arguments Lack Merit facts Natural Resources: ENRD, E 29 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 60 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 692 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States B.1 1. Brown facts 882 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States B.2 2. Jackson facts 869 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1134 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PRIOR STATE DRUG OFFENSE AS AN facts 119 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States B B. The Statutory Context Confirms The Text’s BackwardL facts 50 — candidate
Brown v. United States/Jackson v. United States C C. This Court’s Precedents Confirm That Section 924(e) facts 33 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Administrative Law, Immigr 44 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland statement STATEMENT facts Administrative Law, Immigr 2035 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Administrative Law, Immigr 777 — candidate
Wilkinson v. Garland PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE TO THE AGENCY’S “EXCEPTIONAL AN facts Administrative Law, Immigr 220 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 77 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster A A. Legal Background facts Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 927 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster B B. Proceedings Below facts Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 517 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 747 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster THE TRADEMARK-REGISTRATION BAR IN 15 U.S.C. 1052(c) IS facts Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 83 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster B B. Section 1052(c) Is Consistent With The First Amendm facts Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 87 — candidate
Vidal v. Elster C C. The Court Of Appeals Erred In Declaring Section 105 facts Patent, Trademark, & Copyr 63 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 45 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 883 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 2212 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 871 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States A DISTRICT COURT’S FAILURE TO ENTER A PRELIMINARY ORDE facts 144 — candidate
McIntosh v. United States B B. Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) Is A Time-Related Directive, Not facts 110 — candidate
Moore v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 182 — candidate
Moore v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 1061 — candidate
Moore v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 580 — candidate
Moore v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 632 — candidate
Moore v. United States I I. THE MRT IS AN INCOME TAX facts 100 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.A A. The Sixteenth Amendment Authorizes Congress To Tax facts 84 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.B B. Post-Ratification Practice Shows That Congress May facts 63 — candidate
Moore v. United States I.C C. This Court Has Recognized Congress’s Power To Tax I facts 155 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 26 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz A A. Statutory Background facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 850 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz B B. Proceedings Below facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 859 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 870 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT DOES NOT WAIVE THE UNITE facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 113 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz A A. A Waiver Of Sovereign Immunity Requires Unmistakabl facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 45 — candidate
United States Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Housing Serv. v. Kirtz B B. FCRA’s General Remedial Provisions Do Not Contain A facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 98 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts Securities Regulation (SEC 79 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. A A. Legal Background facts Securities Regulation (SEC 1134 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. B B. Factual Background And Proceedings Below facts Securities Regulation (SEC 1788 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Securities Regulation (SEC 1147 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. I I. CONGRESS ACTED CONSTITUTIONALLY IN EMPOWERING THE S facts Securities Regulation (SEC 96 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. II II. THE SEC’S DECISION WHETHER TO ENFORCE THE SECURITI facts Securities Regulation (SEC 113 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III III. THE TENURE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO SEC ALJS COMPLI facts Securities Regulation (SEC 336 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.B B. The Existence Of Tenure Protection For The Heads Of facts Securities Regulation (SEC 810 — candidate
SEC v. Jarkesy and Patriot28, L.L.C. III.C C. The Tenure Protection Afforded To Members Of The MS facts Securities Regulation (SEC 76 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 26 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough A A. Legal Background facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 869 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough B B. Facts And Proceedings Below facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 920 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 706 — candidate
Rudisill v. McDonough A A. When Petitioner Elected To Receive Post-9/11 Benefi facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 57 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 24 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi statement STATEMENT facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 1345 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 683 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi argument ARGUMENT facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 246 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi A A. The Second Amendment Allows Congress To Disarm Pers facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 253 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi B B. Section 922(g)(8) Complies With The Second Amendmen facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 412 — candidate
United States v. Rahimi C C. The Contrary Arguments Lack Merit facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 19 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 39 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. statement STATEMENT facts Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 2339 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 1023 — candidate
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. II.A A. The Statutory Text, Context, Purposes, And History facts Bankruptcy, Civil Div. I: 25 — candidate
Connelly v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Connelly v. United States A A. Legal Background facts 1052 — candidate
Connelly v. United States B B. The Present Controversy facts 1862 — candidate
Connelly v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1120 — candidate
Connelly v. United States WHEN VALUING A DECEDENT’S SHARES IN A CLOSELY HELD COR facts 230 — candidate
Connelly v. United States B B. Crown’s Obligation To Redeem Michael’s Shares Does facts 190 — candidate
Connelly v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit facts 75 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Criminal (including Habeas 42 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States statement STATEMENT facts Criminal (including Habeas 1588 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Criminal (including Habeas 634 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts Criminal (including Habeas 138 — candidate
Erlinger v. United States I I. THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT A JURY FIND, OR A DE facts Criminal (including Habeas 137 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 239 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok A A. Legal Framework facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1034 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok B B. ATF’s 2022 Rule facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1427 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok C C. Procedural History facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 967 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 518 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok argument ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 100 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok A A. The Weapon Parts Kits Covered By The Rule Are “Fire facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 133 — candidate
Garland v. VanDerStok B B. The Frames And Receivers Covered By The Rule Are “F facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 89 — candidate
Trump v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 29 — candidate
Trump v. United States statement STATEMENT facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 556 — candidate
Trump v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 1069 — candidate
Trump v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 112 — candidate
Trump v. United States I I. A FORMER PRESIDENT LACKS IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL CRIM facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 404 — candidate
Trump v. United States I.C C. Criminal Immunity For A Former President Enjoys No facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 235 — candidate
Trump v. United States II II. EVEN IF A FORMER PRESIDENT HAS SOME IMMUNITY FROM facts Constitutional, Criminal ( 146 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 54 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System statement STATEMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1889 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 588 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FO facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 65 — candidate
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System C C. Petitioner Offers No Sound Basis For Calculating Th facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 370 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Administrative Law 78 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce A A. Statutory Background facts Administrative Law 452 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce B B. Regulatory Background facts Administrative Law 450 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce C C. The Present Controversy facts Administrative Law 398 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Administrative Law 591 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I I. THE COURT SHOULD NOT OVERRULE CHEVRON facts Administrative Law 267 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.A A. Chevron Is A Bedrock Principle Of Administrative La facts Administrative Law 145 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.B B. Stare Decisis Principles Weigh Heavily In Favor Of facts Administrative Law 285 — candidate
Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce I.C C. Petitioners’ Remaining Arguments Lack Merit facts Administrative Law 34 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 124 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill A A. Legal Background facts 869 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill B B. Bump Stocks facts 1697 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill C C. Procedural History facts 893 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 643 — candidate
Garland v. Cargill argument ARGUMENT facts 67 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 120 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA A A. Legal Background facts 995 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA B B. Facts And Proceedings Below facts 1739 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1148 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA THE D.C. CIRCUIT IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR REVIEW O facts 408 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA A A. The Disapproval Action Is Nationally Applicable facts 51 — candidate
State of Oklahoma v. EPA / PacifiCorp v. EPA B B. The Disapproval Action Is Based On Determinations O facts 70 — candidate
Thompson v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 67 — candidate
Thompson v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1666 — candidate
Thompson v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts ❝ 1073 — candidate
Thompson v. United States I I. TEXT, CONTEXT, AND HISTORY SHOW THAT PETITIONER’S U facts 131 — candidate
Thompson v. United States 1 1. The plain meaning of “any false statement” includes facts 1466 — candidate
Thompson v. United States 2 2. Statutory context underscores that the word “false” facts 653 — candidate
Thompson v. United States 3 3. Precedent reinforces the plain meaning of the statu facts 666 — candidate
Thompson v. United States B.1 1. Section 1014’s text does not support petitioner’s i facts 554 — candidate
Thompson v. United States B.2 2. Other statutes do not provide a basis for narrowing facts 1002 — candidate
Thompson v. United States B.3 3. Precedent does not support petitioner’s “literal fa facts 1094 — candidate
Thompson v. United States B.4 4. Petitioner’s policy concerns are misplaced facts 661 — candidate
Thompson v. United States B.5 5. The rule of lenity does not apply facts 146 — candidate
Thompson v. United States II II. UNDER ANY STANDARD, SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTED facts 468 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 211 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. statement STATEMENT facts 2272 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 757 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. I I. THE FSIA DOES NOT REQUIRE A SEPARATE “MINIMUM CONTA facts 139 — candidate
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., Ltd. / Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. III III. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A FOREIGN STATE IN THI facts 101 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 102 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas A.1 1. The Atomic Energy Act facts 729 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas A.2 2. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act facts 785 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas A.3 3. The Hobbs Act facts 206 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas B B. Factual And Procedural Background facts 1334 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 640 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas I I. RESPONDENTS DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTORY PREREQUIS facts 84 — candidate
NRC v. Texas/Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas II II. THE COMMISSION HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO LICENSE facts 167 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 116 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine A A. Statutory Background facts 253 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine B B. FDA’s Actions Addressing Mifepristone facts 916 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine C C. Respondents’ Citizen Petitions facts 240 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine D D. Proceedings Below facts 991 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 834 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine I I. RESPONDENTS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING facts 280 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine I.A A. Respondents Have Not Established A Cognizable Injur facts 350 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine II II. FDA’S ACTIONS WERE LAWFUL facts 167 — candidate
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/Danco Labs., L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine III III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S REMEDY WAS IMPROPER facts 92 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 19 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney A A. Statutory Background facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 641 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney B B. Factual Background facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1168 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 946 — candidate
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney argument ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 274 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 128 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri A A. Background facts ❝ Civil Div. I: General (e.g 922 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri B B. The Present Controversy facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 1427 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 772 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri I I. RESPONDENTS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 293 — candidate
Murthy v. Missouri II.C C. The Fifth Circuit Found State Action Only By Embrac facts Civil Div. I: General (e.g 323 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 26 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1816 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 862 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States PETITIONER’S ATTEMPTED MURDER OFFENSE IS A CRIME OF VI facts 300 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States A A. Intentionally Causing Bodily Injury Or Death Requir facts 99 — candidate
Delligatti v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Reading Of Section 924(c) Is Textually facts 71 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 32 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 1628 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1018 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 190 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States A A. Petitioners’ Fraudulent Scheme Satisfies Every Elem facts 116 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States B B. Petitioners Cannot Escape Liability By Engrafting A facts 139 — candidate
Kousisis v. United States C C. Common-Law Property Fraud Has Not Required Net Pecu facts 199 — candidate
Rico v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 22 — candidate
Rico v. United States introduction INTRODUCTION facts 543 — candidate
Rico v. United States A A. Statutory Framework facts 882 — candidate
Rico v. United States B B. Factual Background facts 766 — candidate
Rico v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 873 — candidate
Rico v. United States PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO COUNT HER PERIOD OF ABSC facts 104 — candidate
Rico v. United States A A. The Supervised-Release Statutes Do Not Allow Petiti facts 85 — candidate
Rico v. United States B B. In Accord With Longstanding Common Law, A Releasee facts 111 — candidate
Rico v. United States C C. Petitioner’s Appeals To Equity Lack Merit facts 45 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 74 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump introduction INTRODUCTION facts 906 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump A A. The Declarations Of Emergencies facts 1578 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump B B. Statutory Background facts 1231 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump C.1 1. Learning Resources facts 198 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump C.2 2. V.O.S. Selections facts 715 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 690 — candidate
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump argument ARGUMENT facts 158 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 116 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. introduction INTRODUCTION facts 855 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. A A. Legal And Factual Background facts 980 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. B.1 1. The Sokolow litigation and the Anti-Terrorism Clari facts 533 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. B.2 2. The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of T facts ❝ 479 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. B.3 3. District court proceedings under the Act facts 257 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. B.4 4. Court of appeals proceedings under the Act facts 684 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 951 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. THE ACT’S PROVISIONS FOR ESTABLISHING PERSONAL JURISDI facts 149 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. A A. The Act Satisfies This Court’s Fourteenth Amendment facts 106 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. B B. At A Minimum, The Act Is Constitutional Under The D facts 192 — candidate
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org./United States v. Palestine Liberation Org. C C. The Second Circuit Erred In Invalidating The Act facts 50 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research question_presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED facts 155 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research A A. Universal Service Fund facts 1328 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research B B. Proceedings Below facts 918 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 733 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research argument ARGUMENT facts 145 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II II. NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE FCC HAS EFFECTED AN UNCON facts 68 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.A A. Section 254 Does Not Delegate Legislative Power To facts 84 — candidate
FCC v. Consumers' Research/Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coal v. Consumers' Research II.B B. The Commission Has Not Delegated Governmental Power facts 77 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees statement STATEMENT facts 2294 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees argument ARGUMENT facts 122 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees A A. The Government Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits facts 68 — candidate
United States Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees B B. The Other Factors Support Relief From The District facts 45 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 39 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi introduction INTRODUCTION facts 828 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi A A. Statutory Background facts 878 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi B B. Prior Proceedings facts 1601 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 709 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi A A. The BIA’s Determination That An Alien Did Not Estab facts 258 — candidate
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi B B. Petitioners’ Contrary Arguments Lack Merit facts 53 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 27 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n introduction INTRODUCTION facts 411 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n A A. Legal Background facts 932 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n B B. The Present Controversy facts 830 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 681 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n PECUNIARY HARM TO INVESTORS IS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR facts 161 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n A A. The Exchange Act’s Disgorgement Provisions Do Not I facts 89 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n B B. Statutory Context And History Confirm The Scope Of facts 25 — candidate
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n C C. Petitioner’s Reliance On Liu Is Misplaced facts 329 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States question_presented QUESTION PRESENTED facts 38 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States introduction INTRODUCTION facts 607 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States statement STATEMENT facts 2117 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States summary_of_argument SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT facts 1259 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States argument ARGUMENT facts 164 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.A A. Venue Is Constitutionally Permissible In The Distri facts 57 — candidate
Abouammo v. United States I.B B. Petitioner’s Section 1519 Offense Was Committed In facts 89 — candidate