Padilla v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis
352 F.3d 695 · 2003
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1553 · 10 U.S.C. § 956 · 18 U.S.C. § 4001 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 50 U.S.C. § 1541 · 50 U.S.C. § 1544
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Katz v. United States · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · William Marbury v. James Madison
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]lthough Commander Marr is the commander of the Brig, the legal reality of control is vested in Secretary Rumsfeld, since only he — and not Commander Marr — could inform the President that further restraint of Padilla as an enemy combatant is no longer necessary.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“If the plain language is unambiguous, judicial inquiry ends, except in rare and exceptional circumstances, and legislative history is instructive only upon the most extraordinary showing of contrary intentions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war has invoked that law. By his Order creating the present Commission he has undertaken to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Congress, and also such authority as the Constitution itself gives the Commander in Chief, to direct the performance of those functions which may constitutionally be performed by the military arm of the nation in time of war.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.