J.S. v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that non-profit organization’s “derivative interests” did not fall within the zone of interests of the INA and Administrative Procedure Act and using congressional intent as a “traditional tool of statutory interpretation” to reach this conclusion
• “[A] plaintiff needs to allege only some perceptible opportunity cost from the expenditure of resources that could be spent on other activities.” (citations and punctuation omitted)
• “Section 1421(c)’s exhaustion requirement is mandatory, and the Individual Plaintiffs may not sue until they have satisfied it.”
• “The availability of . . . alternative mechanisms to enforce” a statute “strongly suggests that Congress did not intend to imply a superfluous private right of action”
• district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim because plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).