6 U.S.C. § 552a
Savings provision of certain transfers made under the Homeland Security Act of 2002
The transfer of functions under subtitle B of title XI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–296) [6 U.S.C. 531 et seq.] shall not affect any pending or completed administrative actions, including orders, determinations, rules, regulations, personnel actions, permits, agreements, grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, or registrations, in effect on the date immediately prior to the date of such transfer, or any proceeding, unless and until amended, modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked. Pending civil actions shall not be affected by such transfer of functions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1987–2017 · leading case: Richard Beck v. Robert McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017).
Richard Beck v. Robert McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017). “9 To establish their standing to seek such relief, the Plaintiffs borrow from the statutory language of the Privacy Act, contending that the “substantial harm,” “embarrassment,” “inconvenience,” and “unfairness” caused them by the Defendants satisfies their Article III burden…”
Betty Martin v. Off. of Special Couns., Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 819 F.2d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “See 6 U.S.C. §§ 552a(q)(1), (q)(2) (1982); Fagot v.”
Murray v. McDonald, 273 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D.D.C. 2017). “2014) (per curiam) (citing 6 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)). Hence, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment will likewise be denied.”
Maxwell v. Rubin, 3 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 1998). “FACTS Plaintiff Lawrence Maxwell brought this case under the Privacy Act, 6 U.S.C. § 552a. 2 He alleges that he has “been the recipient of threatening correspondence and numerous documents purportedly created and forwarded via United States mail by agents of the United States…”
Taylor v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 186 B.R. 441 (N.D. Iowa 1995). “Pursuant to provisions of the Privacy Act, 6 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(7) and (e), the IRS published in the Federal Register notices of “routine uses” of certain taxpayer records, including their disclosure to state revenue departments, pursuant to 26 U.”
— 6 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(7) — 1 case
Taylor v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 186 B.R. 441 (N.D. Iowa 1995). “Pursuant to provisions of the Privacy Act, 6 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(7) and (e), the IRS published in the Federal Register notices of “routine uses” of certain taxpayer records, including their disclosure to state revenue departments, pursuant to 26 U.”
— 6 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) — 1 case
Richard Beck v. Robert McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017). “9 To establish their standing to seek such relief, the Plaintiffs borrow from the statutory language of the Privacy Act, contending that the “substantial harm,” “embarrassment,” “inconvenience,” and “unfairness” caused them by the Defendants satisfies their Article III burden…”
— 6 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1) — 1 case
Murray v. McDonald, 273 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D.D.C. 2017). “2014) (per curiam) (citing 6 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)). Hence, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment will likewise be denied.”
— 6 U.S.C. § 552a(q)(1) — 1 case
Betty Martin v. Off. of Special Couns., Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 819 F.2d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “See 6 U.S.C. §§ 552a(q)(1), (q)(2) (1982); Fagot v.”
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.