2 U.S.C. § 1410
Other judicial review prohibited
Except as expressly authorized by sections 1407, 1408, and 1409 of this title, the compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter and any action taken pursuant to this chapter shall not be subject to judicial review.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 2006–2020 · leading case: Morris Davis v. James Billington, 681 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Morris Davis v. James Billington, 681 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “The Library’s internal regulations and policies 8 2 U.S.C. § 1410 provides that “[e]xcept as expressly authorized by sections 1407, 1408, and 1409 of this title, the compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter and any action taken pursuant to this chapter…”
Morris v. Off. of Compliance, 608 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1410 . The statutes defining the right to judicial review of Board decisions thus make clear that only the Board’s General Counsel and the respondent to an unfair labor practice complaint are authorized to obtain review in this court of an adverse Board decision.”
Rita Bastien v. The Off. of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 454 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 2006). “The Office contends that under the CAA judicial review is limited, see 2 U.S.C. § 1410 , and that by allowing Ms.”
Bradshaw v. Off. of the Architect of the Capitol, 856 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2012). “2 U.S.C. § 1410 (“Except as expressly authorized by sections 1407, 1408, and 1409 .”
Ham v. Ayers, 229 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2017). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1410 . Mr. Ham’s arguments must be evaluated within this context of clear statutory directions that govern and limit Congress’s waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Ham v. Ayers, 318 F. Supp. 3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “When a court must determine the timeliness of events, it is, of course, helpful for the parties to provide dates, not all of which are included in the record here.”
Kabakova v. Off. of the Architect of the Capitol (D.D.C. 2020). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1410 (1995). Amendments to the CAA on December 21, 2018, after the plaintiff was terminated but before she filed this suit, altered the pre-suit administrative processes and revised § 1408, the provision granting jurisdiction to federal courts.”
Morris v. OOC (Fed. Cir. 2010). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1410 . The statutes defining the right to judicial review of Board decisions thus make clear that only the Board’s General Counsel and the respondent to an unfair labor practice complaint are authorized to obtain review in this court of an adverse Board decision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.