Trove
Sign In Sign Up

U.S. Supreme Court

Organization
Mentions
403
Relationships
4
Events
26
Documents
148
Also known as:
Supreme Court
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
4 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person President Wilson
Legal representative
8 Strong
1
View
person National Labor Relations Board
Authority affirmed
7
1
View
person Senator Pepper
Advocacy
5
1
View
person The President
Judicial review
5
1
View
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_022335.jpg

This document is page 6 of a table of contents from a 2013 publication titled 'Tax Topics,' identified by the Bates number HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022335. It lists various tax-related topics, legislative acts (e.g., Pension Protection Act of 2006), and legal cases from 2006 and 2007, covering subjects like estate tax, trust fees, and IRAs. The document is purely technical and contains no information related to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or his activities.

Table of contents for a 'tax topics' publication
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022334.jpg

This document is a table of contents from a 2013 publication, 'Tax Topics,' listing subjects covered in 2007 and 2008 regarding U.S. tax law, including legislation, IRS rulings, and court cases. The document, bearing the identifier 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022334,' was produced as part of a congressional investigation but does not contain direct information about Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or his activities.

Table of contents for a 'tax topics' publication, produced as evidence in a house oversight committee investigation.
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332.jpg

This document is page 3 of a table of contents for a 2013 publication called 'Tax Topics,' listing articles from 2010 and 2011. The articles cover complex U.S. tax and estate planning subjects, such as specific legal cases, legislative acts, and tax planning strategies (e.g., GRATs). While the document itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein or his known associates, its focus on sophisticated wealth and estate tax law is relevant to the financial activities of high-net-worth individuals, and its identifier 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332' indicates it was collected as part of a congressional investigation.

Table of contents for a publication titled 'tax topics'
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022331.jpg

This document is a table of contents listing significant U.S. tax-related topics and events chronologically from May 2011 to January 2013. Key entries include legislation like the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, economic events such as the "fiscal cliff," court cases including Wandry v. Commissioner, and policy proposals like the "Buffett Rule." Each item is dated and provides a brief description of the topic.

Table of contents
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022330.jpg

This document is the 2013 table of contents for a 'Tax Topics' publication series from Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management, featuring articles by Blanche Lark Christerson. It lists various tax-related subjects published throughout the year, including legal cases like United States v. Windsor and updates on tax law. The document's content is about general U.S. tax matters and does not mention Jeffrey Epstein or his known associates, though the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022330' suggests it was collected as part of a congressional investigation.

Table of contents for a publication on 'tax topics'
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022328.jpg

This document, dated December 20, 2013, is a 'Tax Topics' newsletter analyzing US political events and their tax implications. It discusses the recent government shutdown's effect on the tax filing season, the Senate Democrats' use of the 'nuclear option' for judicial nominees, the meaning of 'permanency' in tax law, and the IRS's newly issued federal interest rates for December 2013. The document does not contain any information related to Jeffrey Epstein or his associates.

Tax topics newsletter/briefing
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022327.jpg

This document is page 3 of a 'Tax Topics' briefing dated December 20, 2013, which analyzes recent changes in U.S. tax law. It details the new 3.8% net investment income tax under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the implications of the Supreme Court's Windsor decision on same-sex marriage for federal taxes, and the troubled rollout of HealthCare.gov. The document is a general overview of tax law and contains no information related to Jeffrey Epstein or associated individuals.

Tax topics report/briefing page
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022311.jpg

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.

Government publication / congressional exhibit
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022310.jpg

This document is a page from the Federal Register, dated August 30, 2011, containing a legal argument against a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule. The author contends that the NLRB exceeded its statutory authority by mandating that employers post a notice of employee rights, arguing that Congress did not delegate this specific 'gap-filling' power and that failure to post does not constitute an 'unfair labor practice' under the existing framework of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The document cites numerous court cases and legislative history to support the position that the NLRB's rule is an overreach.

Federal register publication / legal opinion
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022309.jpg

This document is a dissenting opinion from a Federal Register publication, arguing that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) lacks the statutory authority to require employers to post notices of employee rights. The author contends that unlike other labor laws where Congress explicitly mandated such postings, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) contains no such provision, and the Board's attempt to create one is an overreach of its authority.

Federal register publication
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg

This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, detailing the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) rules regarding an employer's failure to post employee rights notices. It discusses why this failure is an unfair labor practice and justifies the equitable tolling of the six-month statute of limitations for filing charges when required notices are not posted. Despite the prompt's framing, the document's content is entirely about U.S. labor law and has no connection to Jeffrey Epstein; the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304' is a Bates number, likely indicating it was an exhibit in a congressional document production.

Federal register publication (rules and regulations)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022303.jpg

This document is a page from the Federal Register, dated August 30, 2011, in which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) justifies its rule that an employer's failure to post a notice of employee rights is an unfair labor practice. The Board refutes arguments from various business and legal organizations that it is overstepping its authority, citing Supreme Court precedent for its interpretive flexibility and drawing parallels to similar notice requirements under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The document is part of a legal and administrative record and is unrelated to Jeffrey Epstein.

Federal register publication / rules and regulations
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022290.jpg

This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, detailing public comments on a proposed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule requiring employers to post a notice of employee rights. It outlines the divided feedback, with unions and employee advocates praising the notice for its clarity, while employer groups and conservative organizations criticized it as unbalanced, pro-union, and an oversimplification of complex labor law. The document has no connection to Jeffrey Epstein and is solely focused on U.S. labor regulations.

Federal register publication
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022284.jpg

This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, not an Epstein-related document. It contains legal analysis by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) justifying a new rule that requires employers to post notices of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board refutes arguments against the rule's validity, citing Supreme Court precedents and changing unionization rates, and compares the NLRA to other labor statutes.

Federal register publication (rules and regulations section)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022281.jpg

This document from the Federal Register discusses the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) statutory authority to issue a rule requiring employers to post notices of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board refutes arguments that a high standard of "necessity" or "grave and immediate danger" is required, citing legal precedents like Chevron and AHA to justify its rulemaking power. The text concludes that the notice-posting rule is a legitimate exercise of authority because effective enforcement of the NLRA depends on employees being aware of their rights.

Federal register notice concerning nlrb rulemaking authority
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022280.jpg

This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, in which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) legally defends its authority to issue legislative rules. The NLRB rebuts arguments from organizations like Americans for Limited Government by citing Supreme Court precedents, particularly the 'Mayo' case, which support broad rulemaking power for federal agencies. The document confirms the NLRB's position that it is empowered by Congress to be a rulemaking body, not just an enforcement agency. There is no mention of Jeffrey Epstein or any related topics.

Federal register publication (rules and regulations section)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022279.jpg

This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, detailing the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) legal justification for its rulemaking authority under the NLRA. It refutes comments from organizations opposing a proposed rule by citing numerous Supreme Court precedents that affirm broad rulemaking powers for federal agencies. This document is purely a legal and administrative text and contains no information whatsoever related to Jeffrey Epstein or any associated individuals.

Federal register notice / legal document
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012393.jpg

This document is a legal analysis discussing the U.S. President's executive power in relation to enforcing laws believed to be unconstitutional. It summarizes a 1985 Congressional Research Service memorandum and five Supreme Court cases (from 1926-1991) that illustrate historical conflicts between the executive and legislative branches. Despite the user's query identifying it as 'Epstein-related', the text of this specific page contains no information about Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or related matters.

Legal analysis document / memorandum
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012392.jpg

This document is a legal and historical memorandum, identified by the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012392', which compiles precedents regarding the separation of powers within the U.S. government. It cites historical statements, letters, and congressional reports to explore the President's authority to challenge or refuse to implement legislation deemed unconstitutional. The document contains no information related to Jeffrey Epstein or any associated individuals or events.

Legal or research memorandum, likely for a congressional committee, citing historical precedents on executive power.
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012388.jpg

This document is a legal memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger regarding the President's constitutional authority to decline enforcement of a law believed to be unconstitutional, even after signing it. The analysis relies on legal precedent, including the Myers case, and historical examples from Presidents Eisenhower and Roosevelt. Despite the user's query, this document has no discernible connection to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or any related activities.

Legal memorandum/opinion from the office of legal counsel (olc), part of a document production for a congressional committee.
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012387.jpg

This document is a legal memorandum, identified as 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012387', outlining the constitutional basis for a U.S. President to refuse to enforce a statute believed to be unconstitutional. It details the President's duty to defend executive power and uses the 1926 Supreme Court case Myers v. United States, involving President Wilson, as a key historical precedent. The document contains no information related to Jeffrey Epstein or his associates.

Legal/policy memorandum, likely from a collection for a congressional committee, based on the footer 'house oversight 012387'.
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012386.jpg

This legal memorandum, dated November 2, 1994, is addressed to Abner J. Mikva, Counsel to the President. It argues that the President has the constitutional authority to decline to execute statutes he believes are unconstitutional, citing judicial precedent from cases like Myers v. United States and long-standing executive branch practice. The memorandum then begins to lay out specific propositions for how and when this authority should be exercised, starting with the President's obligation to act within the bounds of the Constitution.

Legal memorandum
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018870.jpg

Two opinion columns from November 9, 2012, analyze the aftermath of the recent presidential election. Gail Collins satirically discusses the "fiscal cliff" and the Republican reaction to losing, while Nicholas D. Kristof argues that the Republican party must adapt to changing demographics (Hispanic voters, women) or risk becoming irrelevant.

Newspaper opinion columns
2025-11-16
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search