Citation network
Department of Commerce Vs. United States House of Representatives
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 30, 1998
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
-
Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
House of Representatives - 525 U.S. 316 (1998) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Department of Commerce Et Al. V. UnitedSearch
-
to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. E. g., Allen v. WrightSearch
-
Together with No. 98-564, Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. GlavinSearch
-
for standing, since Indiana residents' votes will be diluted by the loss of a Representative. See, e. g., Baker v. CarrSearch
-
See Green v. BockSearch
-
apportionment, the Court need not reach the constitutional question presented. See, e. g., Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughSearch
-
therefore that case no longer presents a substantial federal question and the appeal therein is dismissed. Cf. Sanks v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of the Bureau's plan for the 2000 census occasioned two separate legal challenges. The first suit, styled Clinton v. GlavinSearch
-
Court and we noted probable jurisdiction on September 10, 1998, 524 U. S. 978, and consolidated this case with Clinton v. GlavinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for oral argument, 525 U. S. 924 (1998). II We turn our attention first to the issues presented by Clinton v. GlavinSearch
-
see Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSearch
-
Allen v. WrightSearch
-
U. S. 737 , 751 (1984). See also Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
must establish that there exists no genuine issue of material fact as to justiciability or the merits. See Lujan v. NationalSearch
-
to bring this suit, we affirm the District Court's holding. See Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. PeriniSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
U. S. 186 , 208 (1962) (quoting Coleman v. MillerSearch
-
Loudoun County, Virginia), Deborah Hardman (St. Johns County, Florida), Jim Lacy (Orange County, California), Helen v. EnglandSearch
-
the population numbers generated by the federal decennial census for federal congressional redistricting. See Karcher v. DaggettSearch
-
Application for Stay in Klutznick v. YoungSearch
-
O. T. 1979, No. A-533, p. 14, n. 7. See also Young v. KlutznickSearch
-
cert. denied sub nom. Young v. BaldrigeSearch
-
Philadelphia v. KlutznikSearch
-
Carey v. KlutznikSearch
-
Oct. 7, 1994). In light of this history, appellants make no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
we so conclude, we find it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question presented. See Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlinSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
U. S. 288 , 344 344 Department of Commerce V. UnitedSearch
-
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Clinton v. GlavinSearch
-
No. 98564. As this decision also resolves the substantive issues presented by Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
that case no longer presents a substantial federal question. The appeal in that case is therefore dismissed. Cf. Sanks v. GeorgiaSearch
-
The Secretary is under no command to authorize 346 346 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE v. UNITEDSearch
-
the text in such fashion as to avoid serious constitutional doubt. See, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
and every Congress before the present one, thought that estimations were not permissible. See, e. g., Printz v. UnitedSearch
-
Constitution requires. (Appellant Commerce Department itself once argued that case in the courts. See, e. g., Young v. KlutznickSearch
-
Young v. KlutznickSearch
-
Carey v. KlutznickSearch
-
see also Wisconsin v. CitySearch
-
account, the Secretary believes the present proposal does so. Census 2000 354 354 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE v. UNITEDSearch
-
former more specific provision would prevail over the latter if there were any conflict between the two. See Edmond v. UnitedSearch
-
and unlike the District Court, the Court does not rely on our reference to the watchdog that did not bark in Chisom v. RoemerSearch
-
to prohibit sampling, but that reasoning does not apply to an exception from a mandatory provision. S See Stone v. INSSearch
-
five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, 363 See Department of Commerce v. MontanaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial