Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 FSUPP3D 1075 - Ramos v. Nielsen

Ramos v. Nielsen’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
April 2019
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1254A (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Janet Reno, Attorney General v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee et al. · Kleindienst v. Mandel

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

  1. “[t]he APA constrains an agency's ability to change its practices or policies without acknowledging the change or providing an explanation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In California Trout ..., the plaintiffs challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) denial of their untimely attempt to intervene in a proceeding concerning the renewal of an operating license for a dam and power plant. In essence, the plaintiffs argued that FERC's decision to grant late intervention requests in three prior adjudications had given rise to an implicit rule that FERC would always grant late requests in certain circumstances, and that FERC was required to offer a reasoned explanation before abandoning that practice. Although it ultimately held against the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the alleged change in adjudicative practice was subject to the APA's requirements for reasoned decision-making. It explained that "while an agency may announce new principles in an adjudicatory proceeding, it may not depart, sub silentio, from its usual rules of decision to reach a different, unexplained result in a single case." [ Cal. Trout , 572 F.3d] at 10 [1023] (quotation and citation omitted). Rather, "if [an agency] announces and follows-by rule or by settled course of adjudication-a general policy by which its exercise of discretion will be governed, an irrational departure from that policy (as opposed to an avowed alteration of it) could constitute action that must be overturned as 'arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.' " The court proceeded to consider the claim on the mer”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, may designate any foreign state (or any part of such foreign state) under this subsection only if- (A) the Attorney General finds that there is an ongoing armed conflict within the state and, due to such conflict, requiring the return of aliens who are nationals of that state to that state (or to the part of the state) would pose a serious threat to their personal safety; (B) the Attorney General finds that- (i) there has been an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other environmental disaster in the state resulting in a substantial but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the area affected, (ii) the foreign state is unable temporarily to handle adequately the return to the state of aliens who are nationals of the state, and (iii) the foreign state officially has requested designation under this subparagraph; or (C) the Attorney General finds that there exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent aliens who are nationals of the state from returning to the state in safety, unless the Attorney General finds that permitting the aliens to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.”
    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.