Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the 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 this example amply “illustrate[s] ... the distinction between a justiciable legal challenge and a non-justiciable political question”
• “noting that “the right to know the factual basis for the action” is an essential componente ] of due process” (internal citations omitted)
• stating that the court does “not accept as true . . . the plaintiff’s legal conclusions or inferences that are unsupported by the facts alleged”
• explaining that an affected party has the right to “be given access to the unclassified evidence on which the official actor relied” (emphasis added)
• declining to “accept as true . . . the plaintiff’s legal conclusions or inferences that are unsupported by the facts alleged”
• finding a due process violation where a foreign-owned corporation was subject to an order preventing a merger without an opportunity to rebut the findings on which the order was based

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).