Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
876 federal appellate · 167 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,853 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Plyler v. Doe (1982), Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963)
876 federal appellate · 167 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States ex rel. Mezei v. Shaughnessy (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3043 · 22 U.S.C. § 223 · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Harisiades v. Shaughnessy · Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath · Korematsu v. United States · Carlson v. Landon
Cited together with United States Knauff v. Shaughnessy · Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell · Landon v. Plasencia · Mathews v. Diaz · Leng May Ma v. Barber
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 1,853 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”
44 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“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.”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“persuaded Congress to adopt a more generous course. By statute it authorized, in cases such as this, aliens' temporary removal from ship to shore. But such temporary harborage, an act of legislative grace, bestows no additional rights. Congress meticulously specified that such shelter ashore `shall not be considered a landing' * * *. And this Court has long considered such temporary arrangements as not affecting an alien's status; he is treated as if stopped at the border”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Oumar Sissoko Julie Sissoko v. Loyda R. Rocha United States of America, Oumar Sissoko, an Individual Julie Sissoko, an Individual v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Attorney General of the United States U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Doris Meissner, Commissioner, United States Ins Richard Nmi Rogers, District Director, United States Ins Four Unknown Named Officers, of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service United States U.S. Public Health Services Joseph Chen, Md Unknown Named Employees of the United States Public Health Services, and Loyda R. Rocha, Immigration Inspector, United States Ins · United States v. Anaya
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.