376 F. Supp. 2d 42 - Enwonwu v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 15 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 28 U.S.C. § 1863 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 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))
Relies on United States v. Booker · Furman v. Georgia · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he court of appeals shall treat the transferred case as if it had been filed pursuant to a petition for review. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“to cases in which the final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion was issued before, on, or after the date of enactment of this division.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“According to the [Conference Committee Report on the Act, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-72, 151 Cong. Rec. H2813-01 (May 3, 2005), available at 2005 WL 1025891 (Committee Report)], St. Cyr had the undesirable effect of “allowing] criminal aliens to delay their expulsion from the United States for years.” Id. at H2872. Furthermore, under St. Cyr, “criminal aliens [were] able to begin the judicial review process in the district court, and then appeal to the circuit court of appeals.” Id. “Criminal aliens thus [could] obtain review in two judicial forums, whereas non-criminal aliens may generally seek review only in the courts of appeals.” Id. “Not only is this result unfair and illogical,” the report noted, “but it also wastes scarce judicial and executive resources.” Id. “Finally,” the report commented, “the result in St. Cyr has created confusion in the federal courts as to what immigration issues can be reviewed, and which courts can review them.” Id. According to the Committee Report, Section 106 of the REAL ID Act “address[es] the anomalies created by St. Cyr and its progeny by restoring uniformity and order to the law.” Id. at H2873. Thus, Congress has solidified its longstanding effort to ensure that “only the courts of appeals may review removal orders.” Id. at H2872. As the Committee Report points out, Congress’ goal has long been to “abbreviate the process of judicial review of deportation orders and to eliminat[e] the previous initial step in obtaining judicial review” in ”
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.