Busche v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that states had sovereign-authority standing in a pre-enforcement challenge to federal immigration law without using the pre-enforcement framework
• holding that the Secretary “was not subject to the charge of post hoc rationalization” only because he “returned to the drawing table” and replaced the original agency decision with an entirely new one
• recognizing that the term “‘may’ clearly connotes discretion” (emphasis in original) (citation omitted)
• holding that memoranda that “bound DHS staff by forbidding them to continue the [challenged] program in any way from that moment on” were “agency actions” that fit the § 551(4) definition of a rule (emphases added) (citation omitted)
• observing that DHS’s “novel position would expand § 1225(b) 16 far beyond how it has been enforced historically” and simultaneously narrow “§ 1226(a
• observing that DHS’s “novel position would expand § 1225(b) far beyond how it has been enforced historically”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).