Celia Aleman v. Dan E. Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, in His Official Capacity’s Empirical Analysis
217 F.3d 1191 · 2000
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Hancock (2000), Lewis v. Thompson (2001)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Boddie v. Connecticut
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]ational-basis review in equal protection analysis is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.... Furthermore, a legislature that creates these categories need not actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification. Rather, a statutory classification ... must be ivpheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. In addition, the government has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification; [t]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it. Finally, courts are compelled under rational-basis review to accept a legislature’s generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends. A classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Therefore, `a classification neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of validity' and must be upheld `if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[R]ational-basis review in equal protection analysis `is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.' " Heller, 509 U.S. at 319 (quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. 307 , 313 (1993)).”
1 later decision 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.