HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022311.jpg

4.06 MB
View Original

Extraction Summary

0
People
18
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Government publication / congressional exhibit
File Size: 4.06 MB
Summary

This document is page 54040 from the Federal Register, dated August 30, 2011, detailing a legal argument against a new rule by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The author contends the NLRB overstepped its statutory authority, citing legal precedents on agency power and the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard. Despite the user's framing, this document is entirely about U.S. labor law and contains no information whatsoever related to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or any of their activities.

Timeline (3 events)

1991
Supreme Court case American Hospital Association v. NLRB (AHA) is cited, where the court upheld the NLRB's health care unit rule.
United States
American Hospital Association National Labor Relations Board U.S. Supreme Court
2011-07-22
D.C. Circuit Court case Business Roundtable et al. v. S.E.C. is cited, finding the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
United States
Business Roundtable Securities and Exchange Commission
2011-08-30
Publication of rules and regulations in the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 168.
United States

Locations (1)

Location Context
The document discusses United States federal law and legal precedents.

Key Quotes (3)

"Where, as here, Congress has aimed its sanctions only at specific discriminatory practices, the Board cannot go farther and establish a broader, more pervasive regulatory scheme."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022311.jpg
Quote #1
"[Congress] does not * * * hide elephants in mouseholes."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022311.jpg
Quote #2
"Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022311.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document