U.S. Supreme Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
President Wilson
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
1 | |
|
person
National Labor Relations Board
|
Authority affirmed |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Pepper
|
Advocacy |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The President
|
Judicial review |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-11-21 | N/A | U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide on the lawfulness of President Trump ending a program. | Washington | View |
| 2021-10-13 | Legal proceeding | Oral argument was scheduled in the United States v. Tsarnaev case. | N/A | View |
| 2021-03-22 | Legal action | Certiorari was granted in the United States v. Tsarnaev case. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-14 | N/A | U.S. Supreme Court to explore Bridgegate case. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-06-01 | N/A | U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump bid to end 'Dreamers' immigration program. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-04-22 | N/A | Supreme Court arguments scheduled for the week regarding Census citizenship question, Title VII, ... | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2013-06-26 | N/A | The Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor, ruling Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage A... | United States | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in 'Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Re... | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court decision in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States, wh... | United States | View |
| 1992-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case: Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB. The decision is cited in an argument regarding an emp... | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1991-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case Freytag v. Commissioner, which ruled on the appointment of special trial judge... | United States | View |
| 1991-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court decision in American Hospital Association v. NLRB, which unanimously upheld an NLRB... | United States | View |
| 1991-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case American Hospital Association v. NLRB (AHA) is cited, where the court upheld t... | United States | View |
| 1991-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case: Freytag v. Commissioner. A unanimous Court ruled on the appointment of specia... | United States | View |
| 1991-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case *Freytag v. Commissioner*, where the Court ruled on the appointment of special... | United States | View |
| 1983-01-01 | N/A | The Supreme Court recognized the practice of presidential signing statements in the case of INS v... | N/A | View |
| 1983-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court ruling in INS v. Chadha, which recognized the practice of presidents approving legi... | N/A | View |
| 1974-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Bell Aerospace, which emphasized the existence of the Board's l... | United States | View |
| 1969-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court decision in Thorpe v. Housing Authority, which found that an expansive grant of rul... | United States | View |
| 1969-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., which emphasized the existence of the Board's... | United States | View |
| 1961-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case: Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NLRB. The court rejected... | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1926-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case: Myers v. United States. The President refused to enforce a limitation on his ... | United States | View |
| 1926-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case Myers v. United States, where the President refused to enforce a law limiting ... | United States | View |
| 1926-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case Myers v. United States, where the court struck down a statute limiting the Pre... | United States | View |
| 1926-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case *Myers v. United States*, where the Court vindicated the President's refusal t... | United States | View |
20250728111729830_No.%2024-1073%20Markus%20Moss%20COS.pdf
This document is an Affidavit of Service dated July 28, 2025, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case (No. 24-1073) of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States of America. It certifies that Robyn Dorsey Willis of Wilson-Epes Printing Co. served three copies of Maxwell's 'Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari' to Solicitor General D. John Sauer at the Department of Justice. Electronic copies were also sent to the DOJ and David Markus (Maxwell's attorney).
EFTA00032918.pdf
This document is a 'Year in Review' email newsletter from Law360 dated December 26, 2019, summarizing major trends, mergers, and judicial confirmations in the legal industry. It includes extensive lists of law firms, companies, and government agencies mentioned in their reporting. The document appears in this collection likely due to the inclusion of the law firm 'Epstein Becker Green' in the list of law firms, which is a keyword match for 'Epstein' but unrelated to Jeffrey Epstein personally.
EFTA00032906.pdf
This document is an 'Access to Justice' email newsletter from Law360 dated April 20, 2020. It aggregates various legal news stories, primarily focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the justice system, including court closures, remote hearings, and bankruptcy issues. It is relevant to the Epstein files because it contains a summary of a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling that the Crime Victims' Rights Act protections do not arise until after a formal criminal charge is filed, which is described as a blow to Epstein's victims.
EFTA00032549.pdf
This document is a 'White Collar Law360' email newsletter dated January 14, 2020. It summarizes various legal news stories, including a lawsuit filed by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig against The New York Times for defamation, claiming the paper falsely implied he defended taking donations from Jeffrey Epstein. Other stories include the Bridgegate Supreme Court case, the Harvey Weinstein trial, and various fraud and corruption cases.
EFTA00032400.pdf
This document is a 'Law360 Appellate' email newsletter dated April 22, 2019. It provides summaries of recent legal cases across various US Circuit Courts (DC, Federal, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th) and the Supreme Court, covering topics such as the Census citizenship question, Title VII discrimination, and patent disputes. It also lists legal job openings and mentions various law firms and companies in sidebars. The law firm 'Epstein Becker Green' appears in a list of firms, which is likely the only connection to the name Epstein, unrelated to Jeffrey Epstein.
EFTA00025392.pdf
This document is a Law360 email newsletter from July 21, 2020, summarizing various legal news stories. Key topics include the resentencing of Sheldon Silver, a harassment suit at Fox News, and the shooting at the home of Judge Esther Salas, which notes her involvement in a case concerning Deutsche Bank's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The newsletter also covers various corporate litigations, bankruptcy rulings, and general counsel appointments.
EFTA00021202.pdf
This June 26, 2019 edition of The Daily 202 newsletter highlights Robert Mueller's upcoming congressional testimony regarding his report on Russian interference and potential obstruction of justice. It also covers significant national news including the humanitarian crisis at the US-Mexico border, tensions with Iran, the 2020 Democratic primary debates, and various political developments involving the Trump administration. The document provides analysis, key quotes, and links to further reading on these topics.
EFTA00014454.pdf
This document is an email forwarding a Law360 article dated May 2, 2019. The article details Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's testimony before a House Committee, where he defended his previous actions as a U.S. Attorney regarding the lenient non-prosecution agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein. The article notes that Judge Kenneth Marra recently ruled that Acosta violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, though Acosta claimed he followed DOJ protocol. The report also covers Acosta's comments on labor regulations, including overtime rules and the minimum wage.
DOJ-OGR-00000256.tif
This document is an Affidavit of Service from Wilson-Epes Printing Co., Inc., certifying that on July 28, 2025, three copies of the 'REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI' in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (AKA Sealed Defendant 1) vs. United States of America were served. The service was made to D. John Sauer, Solicitor General for the U.S. Department of Justice, and electronically to two email addresses. The affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before Notary Public Aza Salinder Donner.
DOJ-OGR-00015056.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying defendant Maxwell's request for full access to the grand jury transcripts from her case. The court finds she has not demonstrated a particularized need for the materials, as required by law. However, the court has ordered the government to produce the transcripts for a private (in camera) review by July 28, 2025, after which the court may provide excerpts to Maxwell's counsel if deemed necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00021058.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, dating from 1926 to 2022, which are cited within the main document. Each citation includes the case name, legal reporter information, and the page numbers where the case is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00020957.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal standards for investigating juror misconduct, specifically whether a juror lied during voir dire and the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 606 regarding inquiring into jury deliberations. It cites various precedents (McCoy, Nix, Tanner) to establish the boundaries of a 'McDonough inquiry' into juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00022092.jpg
This legal document, page 30 of a court filing from April 24, 2020, outlines the stringent legal standard a defendant must meet to successfully claim selective prosecution. Citing several legal precedents like Armstrong and Alameh, it explains that a defendant must provide clear evidence of both a 'discriminatory effect' (showing similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted) and a 'discriminatory purpose' (showing the prosecution was motivated by impermissible factors like race or religion). The document also specifies the evidentiary threshold required to even obtain discovery on such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text contains legal arguments regarding the timing of appellate reviews, specifically citing precedents (Punn, Mohawk Indus., Hitchcock) to argue that immediate appeals are generally not granted if post-judgment relief (like a reversal after a trial) can adequately protect the defendant's rights. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding juror misconduct. It contends that the government's view—that Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof because Juror No. 50 was untruthful during jury selection—is unfair and incorrect. The argument cites legal precedents, including McDonough and United States v. Stewart, to establish the proper standard for challenging a juror based on false voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009005.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, ranging from 1933 to 2022. Notably, it cites 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019), a case directly involving the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010152.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) dated April 6, 2012, presenting a bibliography of publications by Stephen Gillers from June 2000 to April 2003. The listed articles, published in various legal and mainstream publications like the New York Times and ABA Journal, cover topics in legal ethics and professional responsibility, referencing contemporary events such as the U.S. v. Hubbell case, the Florida presidential election recount, and the Marc Rich pardon.
DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the standard for proving a Fifth Amendment due process violation is extremely high, requiring government conduct that is so egregious it "shocks the conscience." The text cites numerous legal precedents, including cases like Rochin, to illustrate that such violations typically involve severe invasions of individual rights and bodily integrity, and notes the defendant bears a "very heavy" burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00002954.jpg
This document is page 'xix' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing various United States court cases, from Nitsche to Quinones, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1974 to 2018 and originate from several federal courts, including district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.
DOJ-OGR-00002946.jpg
This document is page 12 of a 239-page legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants. The page provides full legal citations for each case and indicates the page numbers within the main document where these authorities are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (*Commonwealth v. Taylor*) discussing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents to argue that the privilege applies broadly in both criminal and civil/administrative proceedings. The document emphasizes that the right accompanies a person regardless of the legal proceeding type.
DOJ-OGR-00004790.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 307) by the Government in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 25, 2021. The text argues that the Government did not violate Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights by obtaining and using her deposition transcripts from a previous civil case. It cites Second Circuit precedent to establish that civil protective orders do not guarantee protection against the use of testimony in subsequent criminal prosecutions.
DOJ-OGR-00005642.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 386) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 29, 2021. It argues against the admissibility of testimony from an expert witness named Rocchio, specifically challenging her opinions on victim credibility and long-term psychological consequences of abuse as irrelevant, prejudicial, and violating Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 704.
DOJ-OGR-00005335.jpg
This document is a proposed juror questionnaire from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. It includes a section on 'Media Issues' which is contested by the government and defended by the defendant. The defendant's response argues for in-depth questioning about media exposure, citing legal precedents like the Tsarnaev case to emphasize the necessity of uncovering potential juror bias in high-profile cases involving individuals like Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005850.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Document 397) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the admissibility of witness identification testimony, citing precedents such as *Neil v. Biggers* and *United States v. Simmons* to argue that even suggestive identification procedures do not require suppression if the identification is independently reliable based on the totality of circumstances. The page bears a Department of Justice footer stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005850).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity