Citation network
FranklIn Vs. Massachusetts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1992
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. 788 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Franklin, Secretary of Commerce, Et Al. V. MassachusettsSearch
-
triggers a course of action regardless of any discretionary action taken by the President. Japan Whaling Assn. v. AmericanSearch
-
Commonwealth v. MosbacherSearch
-
both the AP A and the Constitution. We address first the statutory basis for our jurisdiction under the APA. See Blum v. BaconSearch
-
Burton v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, at 151, not final and therefore not subject to review. Cf. Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. WatermanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. GeorgeSearch
-
U. S. 371 , 379 (1940). The statutory structure in this case differs from that at issue in Japan Whaling Assn. v. AmericanSearch
-
it intended the President's performance of his statutory duties to be reviewed for abuse of discretion. Cf. Nixon v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Although the President's actions may still be reviewed for constitutionality, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
U. S. 388 (1935), we hold that they are not reviewable for abuse of discretion under the AP A, see Armstrong v. BushSearch
-
to review under the standards of the AP A, that does not dispose of appellees' constitutional claims. See Webster v. DoeSearch
-
U. S. 592 , 603-605 (1988). Constitutional challenges to apportionment are justiciable. See Department of Commerce v. MontanaSearch
-
Allen v. WrightSearch
-
we recently rejected a similar argument in Department of Commerce v. MontanaSearch
-
executive officials like the Secretary of Commerce is within the courts' power, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
duty, Mississippi v. JohnsonSearch
-
may be subject to a subpoena to provide information relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution, United States v. NixonSearch
-
Mississippi v. JohnsonSearch
-
the injury alleged is likely to be redressed by declaratory relief against the Secretary alone. See Duke Power Co. v. CarolinaSearch
-
Because the interpretations of the Constitution by the First Congress are per- 804 suasive, Bowsher v. SynarSearch
-
with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation. See De partment of Commerce v. MontanaSearch
-
overseas employees entirely from the state counts will make representation in Congress more equal. Cf. Karcher v. DaggettSearch
-
of the method of apportionment prescribed in the Apportionment Act of 1941, 55 Stat. 761-762. Commonwealth v. MosbacherSearch
-
That decision was consistent with the analysis subsequently set forth in our opinion in Department of Commerce v. MontanaSearch
-
features of the bill were modified somewhat in 1941. Act of Nov. 15, 1941, 55 Stat. 761. See Department of Commerce V. MontanaSearch
-
when he performs the statements is confirmed by the analysis set forth in our opinion in Department of Commerce v. MontanaSearch
-
of authority were implicated in the cases on which the Court relies. See Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. WatermanSearch
-
see, e. g., Bowen v. MichiganSearch
-
of a contrary legislative intent, Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSearch
-
U. S. 136 , 141 (1967) (quoting Rusk v. CortSearch
-
is at least as broad as that allowed the Director of Central Intelligence in the statute we considered in Webster v. DoeSearch
-
principle of judicial deference that pervades the area of national security. See, e. g., Department of Navy v. EganSearch
-
a)(2) to cases involving national security, such as Webster v. DoeSearch
-
and Department of Navy v. EganSearch
-
or those seeking review of refusal to pursue enforcement actions, see Heckler v. ChaneySearch
-
U. S. 17 Indeed, it was asserted in Webster v. DoeSearch
-
see also Baldrige v. ShapiroSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. SeaboardSearch
-
there is no law to apply.''' Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSearch
-
See, e. g., Carey v. KlutznickSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial