Tom Campbell, Member, United States House of Representatives, et al. v. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States,’s Empirical Analysis
203 F.3d 19 · 2000
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024), El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States (2010)
12 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Baker v. Carr · Buckley v. Valeo · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Powell v. McCormack
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Raines focus[ed] on the political self-help available to congressmen.... [T]he Court denied them standing as congressmen because they possessed political tools with which to remedy their purported injury.... Indeed, Raines explicitly rejected [the argument] that legislators should not be required to turn to politics instead of the courts for their remedy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a majority of Senators and Congressmen c[ould] pass or reject appropriations bills; the Act has no effect on this process. Moreover, a majority of Senators and Congressmen c[ould] vote to repeal the Act, or to exempt a given appropriations bill (or a given provision in an appropriations bill) from the Act; again, the Act has no effect on this process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“key to understanding the [Supreme Court's] treatment of Coleman and its use of the word nullification is its implicit recognition that a ratification vote on a constitutional amendment is an unusual situation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.