Briehl v. Dulles’s Empirical Analysis
248 F.2d 561 · 1957
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Kent v. Dulles (1958), 155 F. Supp. 914 - United States v. Eramdjian (1957)
25 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1073 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 951 · 22 U.S.C. § 1732 · 22 U.S.C. § 211A (First Responders Passport Act) · 22 U.S.C. § 212 · 22 U.S.C. § 213 (§ 1 of the Espionage Act of 1917) · 22 U.S.C. § 223
Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · Near v. State of Minnesota Olson · Dennis v. United States
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences. But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.” 16”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dayton v. Dulles“Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Worthy v. Herter““[d]ue to the nature and scope of the world Communist movement, with the existence of affiliated constituent elements working toward common objectives in various countries of the world, travel of Communist members, representatives, and agents from country to country facilitates communication and is a prerequisite for the carrying on of activities to further the purposes of the Communist movement.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.