28 F. Supp. 2d 1275 - Martinez v. Greene’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 14 district ·

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c) Detention of criminal aliens (1) Custody. The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who— (A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2)of this title, (B) is deportable b reason of having committed an offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title, (C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)© of this title on the basis of an offense for which the alien has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, or (D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title, when the alien is released, without regard to whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoang v. Comfort · 667 F. Supp. 2d 1108 - Ortiz v. Napolitano

2. “In the context of immigration statutes and regulations, whether the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest is determined by evaluating whether the infringement on liberty: (1) is impermissible punishment or permissible regulation; and (2) is excessive in relation to the regulatory goal Congress sought to achieve.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 149 F. Supp. 2d 1027 - Vang v. Ashcroft · 176 F. Supp. 2d 316 - Dean v. Ashcroft

3. “The Supreme Court has emphasized that “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over” the admission and expulsion of aliens. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 , 97 S.Ct. 1473 , 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977) (quoting Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 , 29 S.Ct. 671 , 53 L.Ed. 1013 (1909)). The Court “has long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 , 73 S.Ct. 625 , 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953). A myriad of decisions have not departed from the long-established rule that “the power over aliens is of a political character and therefore subject only to narrow judicial review.” Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 , 101 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 1895 , 48 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976) (citing Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 713 , 13 S.Ct. 1016 , 37 L.Ed. 905 (1893)); accord, Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81-82 , 96 S.Ct. 1883 , 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976). The Mathews Court observed that in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, “Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” Id. at 80 , 96 S.Ct. 1883 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 126 F. Supp. 2d 1056 - Marogi v. Jenifer