Karpova v. Snow

11 Citing cases

  1. CLANCY v. OFAC OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

    Case No. 05-C-580 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 24, 2006)

    In reply, the Defendants state that this Court has the authority to treat their motion as a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and that Clancy is on notice that the Court has been asked to grant summary judgment. The Defendants suggest that the Court may dispose of the pending motion without further ado, relying primarily upon Karpova v. Snow, 402 F.Supp. 2d 459, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Karpova, addressed and rejected some similar challenges to the Regulations and to the imposition of a monetary penalty by the OFAC. And, Karpova, 402 F.Supp. 2d at 462, was in a similar procedural posture, with the district court being presented with a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

  2. Bibicheff v. Holder

    55 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Finding dismissal under Rule 12(b) for mootness appropriate and noting that a district court "is permitted to consider materials outside the four corners of the complaint on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and may even resolve disputed jurisdictional facts by referring to evidence outside the pleadings."

    With regard to Plaintiff's asserted interest in international travel, the Supreme Court has stated that โ€œthe freedom to travel outside the United States must be distinguished from the right to travel within the United States,โ€ for โ€œ[u]nlike the right of interstate travel, which is โ€˜virtually unqualified,โ€™ freedom to travel internationally is far from absolute, and has been described as โ€˜no more than an aspect of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.โ€™ โ€ Karpova v. Snow, 402 F.Supp.2d 459, 472 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citing Haig, 453 U.S. at 306โ€“07, 101 S.Ct. 2766 ), aff'd 497 F.3d 262 (2d Cir.2007). Furthermore, โ€œ[t]he freedom to travel abroad, without more, does not overcome the presumptive constitutionality of travel restrictions based on foreign policy and/or national security justifications.โ€

  3. Makey Deli Grocery Inc. v. United States

    11 Civ. 2098 (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 4, 2012)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that agency action "was neither arbitrary nor capricious" when agency "adhered to its own regulations"

    The "focal point for judicial review" is "the administrative record already in existence." Karpova v. Snow, 402 F. Supp. 2d 459, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973)). B. The One-Year Disqualification Adheres to SNAP Regulations

  4. Karpova v. Snow

    497 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that appeals court reviewing summary judgment award on APA claim examines "administrative record de novo without according deference to the decision of the district court"

    Decided August 14, 2007. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 402 F.Supp.2d 459, Colleen McMahon, J. Michael H. Sussman, Law Offices of Michael H. Sussman, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  5. Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Control

    466 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 105 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff lacked standing because government had not specifically threatened prosecution

    Sacks does not challenge OFAC's basic authority to restrict travel to Iraq at the President's direction under the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA). See 22 U.S.C. ยง 287c(a) (allowing the President to prohibit rail, sea, and air "communication" with another country in order to comply with United Nations directives); Karpova v. Snow, 402 F.Supp.2d 459, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding that the Iraq Travel Ban is duly authorized by the UNPA). Instead, he alleges that the Travel Ban regulation, 31 C.F.R. ยง 575.207, exceeded the President's statutory authority because it indirectly regulated the donation of humanitarian medical supplies, something Sacks contends the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) forbids the President from doing.

  6. Abadi v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

    23-cv-4033 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2024)

    โ€œUnlike the right of interstate travel, which is โ€˜virtually unqualified,' the freedom to travel internationally is far from absolute, and has been described as โ€œno more than an aspect of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.'โ€ Karpova v. Snow, 402 F.Supp.2d 459, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff'd, 497 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 306 (1981)). That right is only violated as a substantive matter when the government has engaged in โ€œconduct that is so outrageously arbitrary as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority,โ€ Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258, 263 (2d Cir. 1999), which is not alleged here.

  7. Teleanu v. Koumans

    480 F. Supp. 3d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    The Court will construe Defendantsโ€™ motion as one properly brought under Rule 56. SeeSikh Cultural Soc'y, Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , No. 15-CV-5158, 2017 WL 1232476, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017), aff'd , 720 F. App'x 649 (2d Cir. 2018) (noting that because a court's review in an APA case presents only a question of law, such cases are frequently disposed of on cross-motions for summary judgment) (citing Gosnell v. FDIC , 938 F.2d 372, 375 (2d Cir. 1991) ). A Rule 56.1 statement is not required in a case seeking review of an administrative action under the APA because the case only presents a question of law. SeeKarpova v. Snow , 402 F. Supp. 2d 459, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff'd, 497 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, because "defendants made this motion in the alternative, under both Rules 12(b) and 56, plaintiff has always been on notice that the Court has been asked to grant summary judgment should that be appropriate."

  8. Natural Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep't of Energy

    362 F. Supp. 3d 126 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)   Cited 15 times
    Rejecting mootness argument based on voluntary cessation of challenged conduct where "[t]here [was] no question that [the defendant] is free to return to [its] old ways"

    SeeJust Bagels Mfg., Inc. v. Mayorkas , 900 F.Supp.2d 363, 372 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (opining that cases based on the review of an administrative record "present[ ] only a question of law" and directing parties not to submit Local Rule 56.1 statements); Karpova v. Snow , 402 F.Supp.2d 459, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (summary judgment appropriate without submission of statements of undisputed material facts in APA cases because the administrative record provides the court with "all of the information necessary to determine whether material disputes of fact exist"). The Energy Policy and Conservation Act ("EPCA"), 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 6201 et seq. , authorizes DOE to adopt energy conservation standards for consumer products and set test procedures by which manufacturers certify their products' compliance with applicable standards.

  9. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep't of Energy

    17 Civ. 6989 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The parties have not submitted statements of fact pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 because the facts are set forth and cabined by the AR. See Just Bagels Mfg., Inc. v. Mayorkas, 900 F. Supp. 2d 363, 372 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (opining that cases based on the review of an administrative record "present[] only a question of law" and directing parties not to submit Local Rule 56.1 statements); Karpova v. Snow, 402 F. Supp. 2d 459, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (summary judgment appropriate without submission of statements of undisputed material facts in APA cases because the administrative record provides the court with "all of the information necessary to determine whether material disputes of fact exist").

  10. Siddiqui v. Rocheleau

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00839 (JCH) (D. Conn. Dec. 10, 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that the value of the plaintiff's suit was too speculative to meet the jurisdictional threshold when he alleged, in part, "significant damage to his reputation"

    The court notes that Siddiqui has not alleged violations to his right to travel internationally, which is distinguishable from the right to travel within the United States. See Karpova v. Snow, 402 F. Supp. 2d 459, 471-72 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff'd, 497 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2007). It is well established that "an unadmitted and nonresident alien [ ] ha[s] no constitutional right of entry to this country[.]" Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972); see also Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2419 (2018) ("[F]oreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry.")