CARLSON, SR., MICHAEL J. v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding plaintiffs could challenge as an agency action the Department of Homeland Security’s “practice of shrugging off [its] statutory and regulatory” obligations
• stating that agencies have an “‘affirmative burden’ to explain all of the ‘key assumption[s]’ embedded in its new regulations” (citation omitted)
• affirming that Article III standing is “[a]n indispensable component of federal court jurisdiction in every case”
• treating the scope of plaintiffs' challenge to a de facto policy as a question of law
• explaining the courts may always consider materials “outside of the administrative record” for the “permissible purpose” of elucidating the agency action
• treating the existence of a de facto policy as a factual finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).