Citation network
United States Vs. Munoz-flores
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 21, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 385 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Munoz-FloresSearch
-
U.S. 385 (1990) United States v. Munoz-FloresSearch
-
This case does not present a nonjusticiable political question. It has none of the characteristics that Baker v. CarrSearch
-
its passage does not violate the Origination Clause. This case falls squarely within the holdings of Twin City Bank v. NebeckerSearch
-
U. S. 196 , Page 495 U. S. 387 and Millard v. RobertsSearch
-
II A In Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Accord, INS v. ChadhaSearch
-
separation of powers claims, often without suggesting that they might raise political questions. See, e.g., Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
Morrison, supra, 487 U.S. at 487 U. S. 694 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
by adjudication of Origination Clause challenges. In short, this case has none of the characteristics that Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Nebeker, supra, at 167 U. S. 203 . The Court reiterated the point in Millard v. RobertsSearch
-
is inconsistent with the holdings of the other six Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue. See United States v. GriffinSearch
-
United States v. HerradaSearch
-
United States v. AshburnSearch
-
United States v. ThollSearch
-
United States v. KingSearch
-
Rainey v. UnitedSearch
-
has, however, resolved an Origination Clause claim without suggesting that the claim might be nonjusticiable. Millard v. RobertsSearch
-
Tholl, supra, at 1181-1182, n. 7. But cf. Texas Ass'n of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
The Government does not argue that all of the factors enunciated in Baker v. CarrSearch
-
bill bars this Court from independently considering that question. The only case he cites for his argument is Field v. ClarkSearch
-
a constitutional defect in courtroom procedure does not necessarily vitiate the outcome of that procedure. See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of statutes alleged to effect prospective alterations in the constitutional distribution of power. See INS v. ChadhaSearch
-
No defect in the representative process threatens to impede a democratic solution to the problem at issue. See Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
No claim is made that this statute deals with subjects outside the sweep of congressional power, see Garcia v. SanSearch
-
or that the statute abrogates the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights, see, e.g., Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
United States v. CaroleneSearch
-
Hampton v. MowSearch
-
of the Origination Clause that effectively insulates origination problems from judicial review. See Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
a violation of the Clause. Justice SCALIA, concurring in the judgment. Marshall Field & Co. v. ClarkSearch
-
Id. at 143 U. S. 677 (quoting Weeks v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Munoz-FloresSearch
-
Baker v. CarrSearch
-
of Twin City Bank v. NebeckerSearch
-
and Millard v. RobertsSearch
-
Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
See United States v. GriffinSearch
-
Texas Ass'n of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Field v. ClarkSearch
-
See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial