meaning, that is, ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.’ ” Id. at 5, 117 S.Ct. at 1035 (quoting Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 97 (1976)). In its opinion in that case, the Court instructed that the word “any” must be read as referring to all that it describes. Id. Likewise, we have held that “the adjective ‘any’ is not ambiguous; it has a A, 681 F.Supp. 1244, 1252 (E.D.Mich.1988) (section 113(h) barred judicial review of pre-enforcement challenge to constitutionality of CERCLA); but see Washington Park Lead Comm., Inc. v. United States EPA No. 2:98CV421, 1998 WL 1053712, at *9 (E.D.Va. Dec. 1, 1998) (unpublished) (citizens’ constitutional challenge to administration of CERCLA not barred); Reeves Bros., Inc. v. United States E.P.A., 956 F.Supp. 665, 674-75 (W.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs say that “Congress could not have
holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment holding that under the fourth amendment a party may challenge both the constitutionality of the act permitting warrantless searches as well as the conduct of the government officials in a particular case recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest holding that  9613h did not bar property owners fourth amendment claim that epa had adopted a policy of warrantless searches in carrying out cercla holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment