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 |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017677.jpg
This document appears to be page 42 of a 78-page legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article by Paul G. Cassell discussing the legal rights of crime victims, specifically arguing against the broad use of defense subpoenas to obtain victims' private information (such as mental health records). The text cites various legal precedents and Fourth Amendment arguments to support stronger privacy protections for victims in criminal proceedings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017673.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by attorney David Schoen, bearing a House Oversight Committee stamp. It presents a legal argument citing a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various precedents (Ritchie, Brady, Hach) to argue that constitutional discovery obligations apply only to the government/state actors, not to third parties or crime victims. The text specifically argues against the ability of defendants to subpoena medical or psychiatric records from third-party witnesses who are not state agents.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017662.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.3 and 15. The text argues for protecting victims' rights, specifically regarding witness disclosure in public-authority defenses and allowing victims to attend pre-trial depositions. The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee as part of their investigation, marked with Bates number HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017662.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017661.jpg
This document is Page 26 of a 78-page document, specifically an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article written by David Schoen. The text provides a legal argument criticizing the "Advisory Committee's" proposals regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing against rules that would force victims to disclose their addresses to defendants or participate in face-to-face meetings/depositions without due process. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017651.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely written by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposing amendments to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to explicitly include fairness to victims. It critiques the Advisory Committee's refusal to adopt these amendments. The document bears the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production related to an investigation, likely involving Epstein's plea deal and victims' rights violations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017624.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law review article or legal brief authored or submitted by David Schoen) criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that the OLC incorrectly limits the definition of 'prosecution' under the Sixth Amendment, thereby restricting when victims can assert their rights. The document was produced as evidence for the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017428.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (dated draft April 2, 2012) by Alan Dershowitz. It details his criticism of the United Nations' human rights record and recounts a specific event in 2010 where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered him the position of Israel's Ambassador to the U.N. Dershowitz explains his decision to decline the offer to avoid issues of 'dual loyalty' and to remain identified as an American, while promising to continue defending Israel legally in international courts.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017402.jpg
This document appears to be page 315 of a manuscript draft (dated 4.2.12 with a word count header) analyzing the political and legal impact of Supreme Court decisions, specifically comparing 'Roe v. Wade' and 'Bush v. Gore'. The text critiques judicial activism, discusses the evolution of the Republican Party's stance on abortion under Reagan and Bush, and explores the tension between freedom of and freedom from religion. While part of a House Oversight production (Bates stamp 017402), the content is political commentary and contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein, his network, or specific illicit activities.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017401.jpg
This document appears to be page 314 of a manuscript or book draft (dated 4.2.12 with a word count) analyzing the political and legal history of the US Supreme Court, specifically contrasting desegregation with the abortion debate. The text argues that while the Court successfully unblocked democracy regarding desegregation, the *Roe v. Wade* decision had 'disastrous' long-term consequences by galvanizing the Religious Right and causing the pro-choice movement to become politically lethargic. It references ACLU data regarding public opinion shifts between 1967 and 1972.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017400.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript draft (likely by Alan Dershowitz, referencing his book 'Supreme Injustice') dated April 2, 2012. The text discusses the legal and philosophical complexities of abortion, the definition of when life begins, religious perspectives (specifically Catholic), and connects the politicization of abortion to the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore. The document bears a House Oversight Committee stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017383.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or legal analysis (possibly by Alan Dershowitz, given the style and context of these files) discussing the Supreme Court's *Bakke* decision regarding affirmative action. The text critiques Justice Powell's opinion for favoring Harvard's vague 'holistic' admissions process over Davis Medical School's specific quotas, calling the decision a 'triumph of ambiguity.' The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017378.jpg
This document is a page from a draft manuscript (dated 2012), likely a memoir by Alan Dershowitz, detailing his personal history with the civil rights movement and affirmative action. It recounts his travels to the South in the 1960s to recruit minority students for Harvard Law School and discusses his legal philosophy regarding the 'DeFunis' (1974) and 'Bakke' Supreme Court cases. The page bears a House Oversight Committee stamp, indicating it was part of a document production related to investigations involving Epstein's legal team.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017362.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a draft memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz, based on context) stamped with 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'. It details the author's legal advice to President Bill Clinton regarding the Paula Jones lawsuit, suggesting Clinton should have settled to avoid the deposition that led to his impeachment. The text also recounts the author's testimony before Congress, his conflict with Congressman Henry Hyde, and his arguments regarding the prevalence of perjury in the legal system.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017361.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (possibly by Alan Dershowitz, given the style and context) analyzing the legal strategy of President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The text critiques the decision to allow Clinton to testify before the grand jury and discusses a conversation between the author and Clinton at a party on Martha's Vineyard regarding the Paula Jones lawsuit. The document bears a House Oversight stamp, suggesting it was part of a discovery production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017269.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir written by Alan Dershowitz (identified via the books mentioned in footnotes). The text details his involvement in the O.J. Simpson and Claus Von Bulow trials, specifically focusing on his strategy regarding the death penalty and the forensic defense involving DNA evidence. It mentions his collaboration with Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and F. Lee Bailey.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz) discussing the legal battle of the Tison brothers (Ricky and Raymond) against the death penalty in Arizona. It details the Supreme Court's decision to vacate their death sentences based on a new 'reckless disregard' standard, the subsequent reimposition of the sentence by a trial judge, and the eventual reversal by the Arizona Supreme Court to allow for new evidence. The document is stamped with a House Oversight Bates number, indicating its inclusion in a congressional investigation, likely related to Dershowitz's involvement in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017260.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (possibly by Alan Dershowitz given the self-reference) included in House Oversight evidence. It recounts a specific legal argument before the Supreme Court involving Justice Scalia regarding the 'Enmund' case (Enmund v. Florida) and the application of the felony murder rule when guns are provided during a crime. The text is a dialogue transcript interspersed with narrative commentary.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017250.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (possibly Alan Dershowitz's memoir, given the context of clerking for Justice Goldberg) submitted to the House Oversight Committee. It details the legal history and strategy regarding Supreme Court challenges to the death penalty, specifically discussing *McGautha v. California* (1971) and the landmark *Furman v. Georgia* decision. The narrator describes the shift in the Court's makeup due to Nixon appointees and recounts a celebratory phone call from Justice Goldberg after the *Furman* victory.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017248.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (possibly by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of such document dumps) discussing legal history. It details the 1963 Supreme Court dissent in *Rudolph v. Alabama* regarding the death penalty for rape, specifically focusing on Justices Brennan and Douglas. It highlights the media backlash, specifically an aggressive editorial from the *New Hampshire Union Leader* accusing the justices of encouraging rape.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017214.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal manuscript or book draft (page 127), possibly written by Alan Dershowitz (based on the claim of being a 1964 law clerk). The text argues against the prosecution of Wikileaks, framing it as 'selective prosecution' and comparing it to historical misuse of power like the Alien and Sedition Acts. It includes a detailed footnote discussing First Amendment 'strict scrutiny' regarding violent video game legislation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017195.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or book draft (likely by Alan Dershowitz) discussing the legal defense of actor Harry Reems in the 'Deep Throat' obscenity case. The text details the prosecutor's (Parrish) motivations, Dershowitz's decision to take the case pro bono, and the strategy to win in the 'court of public opinion' by garnering support from mainstream celebrities and The New York Times. The page bears a House Oversight stamp, indicating it was part of a document production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017191.jpg
This document is page 104 of a manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz) recounting a Supreme Court oral argument regarding the film 'I Am Curious (Yellow).' The author details a contentious exchange with Chief Justice Warren Burger regarding a 'bear-baiting' analogy, harshly criticizing Burger's intelligence and judicial performance. The text also references the subsequent 'Miller v. California' decision in June 1973.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017184.jpg
This document appears to be page 97 of a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz) recounting a legal argument regarding the First Amendment and the film 'I Am Curious Yellow'. The narrator describes the panel of three judges (Aldrich, Julian, Pettine) and details his arguments comparing the case to the Supreme Court's 'Stanley' decision regarding private possession of materials. The document bears a House Oversight stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017181.jpg
This document appears to be a draft page (page 94) from a manuscript, likely written by Alan Dershowitz, dated April 2, 2012. It is Chapter 6, titled 'Offensiveness- Pornography: I Am Curious Yellow and Deep Throat,' and discusses freedom of speech, offensive language (citing specific racial and ableist slurs), and government regulation, referencing George Carlin's 'seven dirty words' and Supreme Court rulings. The document contains a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017181', indicating it was part of evidence gathered by the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017178.jpg
This document appears to be a page (p. 91) from a legal manuscript or book draft, dated April 2, 2012, likely written by Alan Dershowitz (based on style and document provenance). The text offers a detailed critique of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' analogy from the *Schenck* case, arguing that it is an inapt and insulting comparison to political advocacy. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of the materials gathered during the congressional oversight investigation, likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity