City Daniel Alvarez, Sr. v. Donna Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Supreme Court has admonished that “rational-basis review in equal protection analysis ‘is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.’ ” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993) (quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)). Rather, a statute survives rational basis scrutiny “if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.” Id. at 320 . Moreover, under rational basis review, [the legislature] need not actually articulate the legitimate purpose or rationale that supports the classification at issue. Instead, a statute “must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” Id. (quoting Beach Communications, 508 U.S. at 313 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 697 - Doe v. McIntire

2. “(1) Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes. (2) It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that— (A) aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations, and (B) the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States (5) It is a compelling government interest to enact new rules for eligibility ... to assure that aliens be self-reliant .... (6) It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kaplan v. Chertoff

3. ““Except as provided in subsection (b), notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, an eligible individual pursuant to section 3 of chapter 118H of the General Laws shall not include persons who cannot receive federally-funded benefits under sections 401, 402, and 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 [(PRWORA)], Pub. L. No. 104-193, as amended, for fiscal year 2010.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority