Ye v. Zemin’s Empirical Analysis
383 F.3d 620 · 2004
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Lewis (2007), Enahoro Cd Mko v. Abubakar (2005)
10 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991) · 28 U.S.C. § 1602 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 517
Relies on Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria · United States v. Lee · Saudi Arabia v. Nelson · Ex parte Republic of Peru · Republic of Austria v. Altmann
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Just as the FSIA is the Legislative Branch’s determination that a nation should be immune from suit in the courts of this country, the immunity of foreign leaders remains the province of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch’s determination that a foreign leader should be immune from suit even where the leader is accused of acts that violate jus cogens norms is established by a suggestion of immunity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matar v. Dichter · Dogan v. Barak“Separation-of-powers principles impel a reluctance in the judiciary to interfere with or embarrass the executive in its constitutional role as the nation’s primary organ of international policy. And the degree to which granting or denying a claim of immunity may be important to foreign policy is a question on which the judiciary is particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the executive. The executive’s institutional resources and expertise in foreign affairs far outstrip those of the judiciary. Perhaps more importantly, in the chess game that is diplo macy only the executive has a view of the entire board and an understanding of the relationship between isolated moves.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The FSIA does not ... address the immunity of foreign heads of states. The FSIA refers to foreign states, not their leaders.”
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.