Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 26 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Richard J. Orloski v. Federal Election Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Richard J. Orloski v. Federal Election Commission Anchor | green | “arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” | 4 |
| 2 | Federal Election Commission v. National Republican Senatorial Committee | green | “necessarily states the agency's reasons for acting as it did.” | 4 |
| 3 | Responsibility v. Fed. Election Comm'n | green | “placed their judgment squarely on the ground of prosecutorial discretion.” | 4 |
| 4 | Responsibility v. Fed. Election Comm'n | green | “agency enforcement decisions, to the extent they are committed to agency discretion, are not subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion.” | 4 |
| 5 | Responsibility v. Fed. Election Comm'n | green | “exercise of its prosecutorial discretion cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny.” | 4 |
| 6 | Ctzn Respsble WA v. FEC | green | “the supreme court in akins recognized that the commission, like other executive agencies, retains prosecutorial discretion.” | 3 |
| 7 | Common Cause v. Federal Election Commission | green | “the statute clearly requires that for any official commission decision there must be at least a 4-2 majority vote.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.