Epstein Secrets

. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 508, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed2d 80 (1979) (internal quota- tion marks omitted). Our case is not an interlocutory appeal, but the Supreme Court's cases in that field are instructive because they reinforce the narrowness of a defendant's ability to chal- lenge the Government's decision to purs

approved. Even assuming that irreparable harm is a factor that may the Government% authority to proceed with a prosecution, for example, the Su- preme Court has allowed those appeals only in very limited circumstances. For example, the Double if pardy Clause, see U.S. Cont. amend. ("Igor shall any pe

rturn a denial of concurring in part and dissenting in part). such relief. Id. We also keep in mind the In the case before us, the organizations' Supreme Court's admonition that any in- voter education and registration efforts are junction regarding government functions is unquestionably protected from unwar

ed States a Oregon, 718 F2d 299, 908 & n. 5 (9th Cir.1983). The district court erred in its ruling that it lacked juris- diction. See, e.g., Jett a Castaneda, 578 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir.1978) (felt). 1101 We have recognized, however, that as a general proposition, a district court has no "power to moni

ee - over the most important consideration, the strong public and private interests at stake. The Goodyear Tire analysis is far more consonant with the Supreme Court's teaching in Jaffee than is MTSG. In Baker v. Secretary, U.S. Dept of Transportation, 452 Fed. Appx. 934, 937 (11th Cir. 2012), this Court appeared

States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) 29, 45 United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 887(2008) 16 United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832 (5th Cir.1998) 16 vi EFTA00209665 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 10 of 75 United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d

re, .'s treatment records from the Parent-Child Center, Inc. and Dr. Serge Thys are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 3 EFTA00182846 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009

C. § 1962(d), al- leging errors at both the indictment and trial stages of his case. Concluding that the district court erred in failing to dismiss Castaneda's indictment on the basis *834 of the government's unwarranted revoc- ation of its transactional immunity agreement, we reverse Castaneda's convict