Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Save Jobs USA v. DHS”
Save Jobs USA v. DHSpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Submitted April 26, 2024 Decided August 2, 2024 No. 23-5089 SAVE JOBS USA, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distric
Save Jobs USA v. DHSpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 27, 2019 Decided November 8, 2019 No. 16-5287 SAVE JOBS USA, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, APPELLEE ANUJKUMAR DHAMIJA, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from
MEMORANDUM OPINION Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Judge In this action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), Plaintiff Save Jobs USA challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) promulgation of a final rule allowing certain H-4 *5 visa hold
MEMORANDUM OPINION TANYA S. CHUTEAN, United States - District Judge Plaintiff Save Jobs USA (“Save Jobs”) brings this action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) for violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Save Jobs alleges that DHS violated the APA when it issued a final rule that will allow certain H-4 vis
State of Texas v. DHSpublic domain
Case: 23-50869 Document: 181-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 23-50869 November 27, 2024 ____________
WA Alliance of Tech. Workers v. DHSpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 3, 2021 Decided October 4, 2022 No. 21-5028 WASHINGTON ALLIANCE OF TECHNOLOGY WORKERS, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
DHS v. Superior Courtpublic domain
113 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 14 STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Sacramento County, Respondent; Theresa v. McGinnis, Real Party in Interest. No. C034163. Court of Appeal, Third District. November 29, 2001. Review Granted February 13, 2002.
State of Texas v. USApublic domain
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: The United States1 appeals a preliminary injunction, pending trial, forbidding implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans -and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”). Twenty-six states (the “states”2) challenged DAPA under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution;
State of Texas v. USApublic domain
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Twenty-six states (the “states”) are challenging the government’s1 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. The district court determined that the states are likely to succeed on their, procedural APA claim, so it tem
State of Texas v. USApublic domain
Case: 15-40238 Document: 00513264640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals __________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-40238 November 9, 2015
STATE EX REL. DHS v. Hindspublic domain
81 P.3d 99 (2003) 191 Or. App. 78 In the Matter of Amanda Broadway, a minor child. STATE ex rel DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent, v. Tiffany HINDS, aka Tiffany Rae Hinds, aka Tiffany Rae Broadway, Appellant. In the Matter of Jessica Ann Houston, a minor child. State ex rel Department of Human Services, Respondent, v. Tiffany Hinds, aka Tiffany Rae Hinds, aka Tiffany Rae Broadway, Appellant.
Yusupov v. Atty Gen USApublic domain
Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-14-2008 Yusupov v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Pr
Yusupov v. Atty Gen USApublic domain
Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Yusupov v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Pr
Bryant v. Merit Systems Protection Boardpublic domain
LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Rob Bryant, Brian Ferguson, and An-dreas Hau (together, “Petitioners”) seek review of the final orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”), dismissing their appeals for laek of jurisdiction. See Bryant v. Dep’t of Homeland See., No. SF-4324-16-0267-I-1, 2016 WL 5372080 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 22, 2016) (“Bry
Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.public domain
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge The United States government's networks and computer systems are extremely *193important strategic national assets. Threats to these systems are constantly expanding and evolving. Their security depends on the government's ability to act swiftly against perceived threats and to take preventi
Nio v. United States Department of Homeland Securitypublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 1 Plaintiffs are *53 non-citizens serving in the United States Army’s Select
Cuevas v. Department of Homeland Securitypublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Cuevas appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing defendants Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and individual employees John A. Schwamm, Michael Freeman, Robert Schroeder, and Donna De La Torres (Federal Officials) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The United States is “immune from suit save as
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiff U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. ("U.S. Auto" or "Plaintiff") is a company that sells, among other products, vehicle grilles and associated parts for vehicle repairs ("Repair Grilles"). Plaintiff commenced this action to obtain judicial review of the decision made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") to impose an enhanced single entry bond require
MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge Plaintiff Electronic Privacy Information Center (“Plaintiff’ or “EPIC”) brings this action against Defendant the United States Department of Homeland Security (“the Government” or “DHS”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff sought records concerning the Defen
Humphrey v. Napolitanopublic domain
*1352 ORDER JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Statement of Material Facts and Memorandum of Law (DE# 37, 11/29/11). Having reviewed the motion, the response, the reply and evidence in the record as well as applicable law, it