American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency,493 F.3d 644,is a case decided July 6,2007,in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA),because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).
Loretta A. Preska is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Born in Albany,Preska received law degrees from Fordham University School of Law and New York University School of Law. She practiced law in New York City from 1973 to 1992 at the law firms of Cahill Gordon &Reindel and Hertzog,Calamari &Gleason. President George H. W. Bush appointed her to the district bench in 1992. She served as chief judge of the court for a seven-year term from 2009 to 2016,and took senior status in 2017. President George W. Bush nominated Preska to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2008,but the Senate did not act on the nomination.
Consuelo Bland Marshall is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Mary Helen Murguia is an American lawyer and jurist serving as the Chief United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She previously served as a U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona from 2000 to 2011.
Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8,which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8,the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown,and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown,respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry,it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court,which held that,in line with prior precedent,the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.
Lucy Haeran Koh is an American lawyer serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Koh previously served as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California from 2010 to 2021. She also served as a California state court judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court from 2008 to 2010. She is the first Korean American woman to serve on a federal appellate court in the United States.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett,564 U.S. 721 (2011),is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks,credit unions,securities firms,payday lenders,mortgage-servicing operations,foreclosure relief services,debt collectors,and other financial companies operating in the United States. Since its founding,the CFPB has used technology tools to monitor how financial entities used social media and algorithms to target consumers.
Numerous lawsuits and ballot challenges,based on conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's eligibility for the United States presidency,were filed following his first election in 2008 and over the course of his two terms as president. These actions sought to have Obama disqualified from running for,or being confirmed for,the Presidency of the United States,to declare his actions in office to be null and void,or to compel him to release additional documentation related to his U.S. citizenship.
Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27,2017,and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries:Iran,Iraq,Libya,Somalia,Sudan,Syria,and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution,federal statutes,or both. On March 16,2017,Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780,which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24,2017,Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan,while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.
Executive Order 13780,titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6,2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran,Libya,Somalia,Sudan,Syria and Yemen,and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27,2017.
Trump v. Hawaii,No. 17-965,585 U.S. ___ (2018),was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump,which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations,or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials,they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.
Juliana,et al. v. United States of America,et al. is a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,the plaintiffs,represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust,include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez,the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians,and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election,stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California,591 U.S. ___ (2020),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.
Our Children's Trust is an American nonprofit public interest law firm based in Oregon that has filed several lawsuits on behalf of youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments,arguing that they are infringing on the youths' rights to a safe climate system.
Wolf v. Vidal,591 U.S. ___ (2020),was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13,2018,Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
California v. Texas,593 U.S. ___ (2021),was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA),colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero,effective for months after December 31,2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that,with a penalty amount equal to zero,some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,591 U.S. ____ (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB),with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause",violated the separation of powers. Handed down on June 29,2020,the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the president of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.
Collins v. Yellen,594 U.S. ___ (2021),was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The case follows on the Court's prior ruling in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,which found that the establishing structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB),with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause",violated the separation of powers;the FHFA shares a similar structure as the CFPB. The case extends the legal challenge to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,593 U.S. ___ (2021),was a case in the United States Supreme Court dealing with matters of jurisdiction of various climate change lawsuits in the United States judicial system.
