Z Street v. John Koskinen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar a lawsuit challenging an allegedly unconstitutional delay in processing 501(c)(3) applications because the injury was the delay itself
• concerning allegations that the IRS had an Israel-special policy “delaying] the processing of section 501(c)(3) applications from organizations whose views on Israel differ from the administration’s”
• concerning allegations that the IRS had an Israel-special policy “delay[ing] 6 the processing of section 501(c)(3) applications from organizations whose views on Israel differ from the administration’s”
• outlining the avenues available to a plaintiff in a tax lawsuit
• “In other words, unlike the plaintiffs in Bob Jones and [Alexander], Z Street does not have the ‘obvious purpose’ of [restraining the assessment of collection of taxes].”
• “A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without 1 || leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not 2 || be cured by amendment.’’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).