Citation network
Utah Vs. Evans
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 2002
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. 452 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Utah Et Al. V. EvansSearch
-
Utah, e. g., Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Because there is no significant dif- 453 ference between Utah and the plaintiff in Franklin v. MassachusettsSearch
-
incentive to bring a precensus action. The Court reads limitations on its jurisdiction narrowly, see, e. g., Webster v. DoeSearch
-
of art with a technical meaning. And the technical literature, which the Court has examined, see Corning Glass Works v. BrennanSearch
-
in Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
the breadth of congressional methodological authority, rather than its limitation. See, e. g., Wisconsin v. CitySearch
-
the plaintiff. Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Allen v. WrightSearch
-
that the Constitution demands. In Franklin v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
We read limitations on our jurisdiction to review narrowly. See Webster v. DoeSearch
-
see also Bowen v. MichiganSearch
-
Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667 , 670 (1986). But see National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. NationalSearch
-
redresses the injury suffered. We have found standing in similar circumstances. See, e. g., Federal Election Comm'n v. AkinsSearch
-
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. CitizensSearch
-
Simon v. EasternSearch
-
Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
with a technical meaning. And the technical literature, which we have consequently examined, see Corning Glass Works v. BrennanSearch
-
deference to the Bureau's own legal conclusion were that deference to make the difference. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
of the draft Constitution submitted for its review and revision. Powell v. M cCormackSearch
-
see also Nixon v. UnitedSearch
-
and that Congress, not the States, would determine the manner of conducting the census. See Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
help determine the issue of detailed methodology before us. Declaration of Jack N. Rakove in Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
et seq. See Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
Ante, at 472 (citing Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
on this issue. See Christensen v. HarrisSearch
-
regardless of whether the Bureau is entitled to any form of deference. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
the census, even when a final decision on that matter was not made until after the census was completed. See Wisconsin v. CitySearch
-
and if not, whether its use is permissible under the Constitution. In accordance with our decision in Franklin v. MassachuSearch
-
Clause and its original understanding.1 1 We gave some consideration to a similar question in Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
McIntyre v. OhioSearch
-
Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334 , 359 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
As JUSTICE SCALIA explained in Department of Commerce v. UnitedSearch
-
ante, at 474-475. Whatever may be said of the earlier version, the Court rejected a similar reliance in Nixon v. UnitedSearch
-
Wisconsin v. CitySearch
-
Printz v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 521 U. S. 898 , 905 (1997) (citations omitted). See also Myers v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief for Federal Petitioners in Wisconsin v. CitySearch
-
of the District Court. JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting. For the reasons I set forth in my opinion in Franklin v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
ante, at 464. They are similar as day and night are similar. Two of them, Federal Election Comm'n v. AkinsSearch
-
U. S. 11 (1998), and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. CitizensSearch
-
of action, and much, much less in violation of the explicit text of a statute.2 Although in the third case, Bennett v. SpearSearch
-
Syllabus Utah Et Al. V. EvansSearch
-
Franklin v. MassachusettsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial