No. 23-792
Response Waived
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law civil-rights constitutional-search due-process international-comity investigative-procedure irs-summons powell-vs-united-states treaty-disclosure united-states-vs-clarke
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure Privacy
CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2024-03-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the IRS summons should be quashed due to tainted investigation
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the district court erred under United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964), and United States v. Clarke, 573 U.S. 248 (2014), in enforcing the IRS summons even though the IRS admittedly already possesses summoned documents. 2. Whether the district court erred under Powell and Clarke in enforcing the IRS summons even though the IRS investigation reflects information obtained through unconstitutional searches. 3. Whether the district court erred under Powell and the principle of international comity in enforcing the IRS summons even though the summons seeks to circumvent the disclosure regime imposed by multiple foreign treaties. (i)
Docket Entries
2024-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2024.
2024-02-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-01-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2024)
2023-12-04
Application (23A501) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until January 19, 2024.
2023-11-29
Application (23A501) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 20, 2023 to January 19, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Jehan Agrama
David M. Lehn — Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Petitioner
David M. Lehn — Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent