Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees [2016]

835 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · United States

Mergers and Acquisitions Lawmergers-and-acquisitions-lawMergers and Acquisitions Lawcounterterrorism-lawCounterterrorism Lawsource verification

Issue

How might Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Mergers and Acquisitions Law, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?

Held

Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Mergers and Acquisitions Law.

Exam use

Summary

How might Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Mergers and Acquisitions Law, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?

Facts

Issue

How might Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Mergers and Acquisitions Law, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?

Held

Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Mergers and Acquisitions Law.

Ratio Decidendi

Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Mergers and Acquisitions Law rule.

Reasoning

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees (835 F.3d 1048) strengthens a Mergers and Acquisitions Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Mergers and Acquisitions Law rule. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as How might Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Mergers and Acquisitions Law, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • mergers-and-acquisitions-law
  • Mergers and Acquisitions Law
  • case research
  • source verification
  • exam authority table

Significance

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.