About This TextComposed: Talmudic Israel, c.150 – c.250 CE

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is a western targum (translation) of the Torah (Pentateuch) from the land of Israel (as opposed to the eastern Babylonian Targum Onkelos). Its correct title was originally Targum Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Targum), which is how it was known in medieval times. But because of a printer's mistake it was later labeled Targum Jonathan, in reference to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Some editions of the Pentateuch continue to call it Targum Jonathan to this day. Most scholars refer to the text as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. This targum is more than a mere translation. It includes much Aggadic material collected from various sources as late as the Midrash Rabbah as well as earlier material from the Talmud. It is effectively a combination of a commentary and a translation. In the portions where it is pure translation, it often agrees with the Targum Onkelos. The date of its composition is disputed. It cannot have been completed before the Arab conquest as it refers to Mohammad's wife Fatima, but might have been initially composed in the 4th Century CE. However, some scholars date it in the 14th Century

https://casetext.com/case/elias-de-lima-v-george-bidwell

PPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO.
No. 145. Submitted January 24, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913.The government of Porto Rico cannot be sued without its consent. The government of Porto Rico, as established by the Organic Act, with some possible exceptions, comes within the general rule exempting a government sovereign in its attributes. That government of Porto Rico, as established by the Organic Act of April 12, 1900, is a strong likeness of that established for Hawaii which has immunity from suit. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349.

Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 227 U.S. 270, (1913)

The complaint in the Connecticut case regarding Ballot Stuffing.
https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV236127336Sball

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967)

Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"

Dartmouth College v. Woodward

Recognizing Corporate Personhood

On December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation to the people of South Carolina that disputed a states' right to nullify a federal law.

Lincoln's First Inaugural was written in Springfield in January of 1861. According to his law partner, William Herndon, Lincoln used 4 sources for his speech: Henry Clay's Great Speech delivered in 1850, President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation Against Nullification, Senator Daniel Webster's Reply to Senator Robert Hayne, and the Constitution. Lincoln had the first draft set in print and allowed David Davis, Orville Browning, Francis Blair, and William Henry Seward to read it. upon their recommendations Lincoln made revisions that made it a more conciliatory document.

The American Civil Rights Union ("ACRU") challenges the Philadelphia City Commissioners' failure to purge the city's voter rolls of registered voters who are currently incarcerated due to a felony conviction. Because state law prohibits felons from voting while they are in prison, the ACRU argues that the National Voter Registration Act requires the Commissioners to remove them from the voter rolls. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court's dismissal of this suit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1125_c07d.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a315_3d9g.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf

Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975), is a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Department of Labor to proceed (or not) with prosecutions under the Act. In this case, there was a disputed election within the United Steelworkers. The Court declined to authorize a jury-type trial into the reasons for the department's decisions, and instead held that court may only review the department's rationales under the "arbitrary and capricious" test

from Wikipedia

Moses v. Kennedy 219 F. Supp. 762 (D.D.C. 1963)

Holding that a private citizen does not have a constitutional right to have his claim investigated and prosecuted by the FBI

Adams v. Richardson 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973)

This education desegregation lawsuit against the federal government was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1970 by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) on behalf of plaintiffs from across the country. Plaintiffs were black college students, citizens, and taxpayers from ten states that had been identified by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) for “operating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 351 F. Supp. 636, 637–38 (D.D.C. 1972). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of HEW and the Director of HEW’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) because they claimed HEW and OCR were not doing their part to administer Title VI.

The first district court opinion was issued on November 16, 1972. Judge John H. Pratt found that the ten states identified by HEW— Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania—either completely ignored HEW’s request for a higher education desegregation plan or submitted deficient desegregation plans to HEW. HEW failed to enforce Title VI against these states and it continued to give federal funding to these states to support their public schools at every level: elementary, secondary, and post-secondary. According to Title VI, HEW was supposed to deny/terminate federal financial assistance to states that were not in compliance with the law or take any other legal measures to enforce state compliance with Title VI. Judge Pratt ordered that HEW officials could no longer use their limited discretion to enforce Title VI; rather, they were ordered to use the means available in Title VI to achieve compliance on a case-by-case basis.

https://clearinghouse.net/case/11091/

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), was a United States Supreme Courtdecision that held agency decisions to not undertake enforcement proceedings is "committed to agency discretion by law" (5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)) and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
From Wikipedia

Powell v. Katzenbach
Holding that writ of mandamus against Attorney General would not lie because the question of whether to institute prosecution is discretionary

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law.Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004), was a Supreme Court case that held that although the Administrative Procedure Actsays that a person may challenge an agency's failure to act, this provision essentially just carries forward the writ of mandamus. Thus an agency cannot be compelled to act unless there is some non-discretionary, discrete act.
(from Wikipedia)