Latu v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
375 F.3d 1012 · 2004
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. · Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell · Deboris Calcano-Martinezs v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Gary Laguerre v. Janet Reno, Jose, Martin Avelar-Cruz v. Janet Reno
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[cjourts of appeals have jurisdiction ... ‘to determine whether the jurisdictional bar applies. [Courts] may therefore decide whether the petitioner is (i) an alien (ii) deportable (iii) by reason of a criminal offense listed in the statute.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it has long [been] recognized [that] the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments [is] largely immune from judicial control.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against an equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 [ 113 S.Ct. 2096 , 124 L.Ed.2d 211 ] (1993). On rational-basis review, “those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.” Id. at 314-15 [ 113 S.Ct. 2096 ] (quotation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.