50 U.S.C. § 403j
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1972–1985 · leading case: United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974).
United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974). “" [2] In essence, the respondent asked the federal court to declare unconstitutional that provision of the Central Intelligence Agency Act which permits the Agency to account for its expenditures "solely on the certificate of the Director .”
Morton H. Halperin v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 629 F.2d 144 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Plaintiff in Richardson did not show the required “nexus”: “Although the status he rests on is that he is a taxpayer, his challenge is not addressed to the taxing and spending power, but to the statutes regulating the CIA, specifically 50 U.S.C. § 403j(b).” Id. at 175, 94 S.Ct.”
Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “50 U.S.C. § 403j(b). . It is not clear, for example, whether the funds expended by the Agency are reported as having been spent by the other agency for which they were originally appropriated.”
William B. Richardson v. United States of Am., 465 F.2d 844 (3rd Cir. 1972). “50 U.S.C. § 403j(b). This procedure creates a two-step system for disbursement of the Treasury’s monies to the CIA.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Morton, 393 F. Supp. 1286 (D.D.C. 1975). “Schlesinger was a class action brought on behalf, inter alia, of all United States citizens and taxpayers against the Secretary of Defense and three Service Secretaries, challenging the Reserve membership of Members of Congress as violating the Incompatability Clause of Article…”
Clark v. United States, 609 F. Supp. 1249 (D. Maryland 1985). “2d 678 (1974), the Supreme Court rejected a taxpayer’s standing to challenge under 50 U.S.C. § 403j(b) the asserted failure of Congress to require the President to provide more detailed reports of CIA expenditures.”
Richardson v. Miller, 504 F. Supp. 1039 (W.D. Pa. 1980). “However, the reasoning was equivocal at best: Although the status he rests on is that he is a taxpayer, his challenge is not addressed to the taxing or spending power, but to the statutes regulating the CIA, specifically 50 U.S.C. § 403j(b).... Respondent makes no claim that…”
— 50 U.S.C. § 403j(b) — 7 cases
Morton H. Halperin v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 629 F.2d 144 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Plaintiff in Richardson did not show the required “nexus”: “Although the status he rests on is that he is a taxpayer, his challenge is not addressed to the taxing and spending power, but to the statutes regulating the CIA, specifically 50 U.S.C. § 403j(b).” Id. at 175, 94 S.Ct.”
United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974). “" [2] In essence, the respondent asked the federal court to declare unconstitutional that provision of the Central Intelligence Agency Act which permits the Agency to account for its expenditures "solely on the certificate of the Director .”
Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “50 U.S.C. § 403j(b). . It is not clear, for example, whether the funds expended by the Agency are reported as having been spent by the other agency for which they were originally appropriated.”
William B. Richardson v. United States of Am., 465 F.2d 844 (3rd Cir. 1972). “50 U.S.C. § 403j(b). This procedure creates a two-step system for disbursement of the Treasury’s monies to the CIA.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Morton, 393 F. Supp. 1286 (D.D.C. 1975). “Schlesinger was a class action brought on behalf, inter alia, of all United States citizens and taxpayers against the Secretary of Defense and three Service Secretaries, challenging the Reserve membership of Members of Congress as violating the Incompatability Clause of Article…”
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.