Consejo De Desarrollo Economico De Mexicali, A.C. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a Bivens action can be maintained against a defendant in his or her individual capacity only
• “Assuming, without deciding, that [plaintiffs] had a cognizable property interest, its remedy for an alleged takings claim is under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491.”
• interpreting relevant provisions of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to exempt a canal lining project from statutory environmental claims
• interpreting the Rules Clause and concluding that “the Constitution textually commits the question of legislative procedural rules to Congress”
• pointing to the federal Rulemaking Clause, U.S. Const., art. 1, § 5, in concluding that “whether Congress decides to hold a hearing on legislation applicable to the general public is a non-justiciable political question beyond our power to review”
• bringing a Bivens suit against a defendant in his official capacity “would merely be another way of pleading an action against the United States, which would be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).