Tijani v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As of today’s date, Tijani has been deprived of his liberty by the government for a period of over two years and eight months. This deprivation has been inflicted not as the result of any adjudication of crime but as a bureaucratic application of the authority conferred on the Attorney General by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (c). Despite the substantial powers that Congress may exercise in regard to aliens, it is constitutionally doubtful that Congress may authorize imprisonment of this duration for lawfully admitted resident aliens who are subject to removal.Two years and eight months of process is not expeditious; and the foreseeable process in this court, where the government’s brief in Tijani’s appeal of the removal was only filed last month after two extensions of time, is a year or more.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Judulang v. Chertoff · 504 F. Supp. 2d 887 - Martinez v. Gonzales

2. “with directions to grant the writ unless the government within 60 days of this order provides a hearing to Tijani before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Judulang v. Chertoff · 549 F. Supp. 2d 1247 - Mau v. Chertoff

3. “Whether detention pending judicial review can be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an alien’s mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (c), and if so, how it should be considered, is a question that has not been explicitly addressed by either the United States Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referenced the period of judicial review which had elapsed and that which was yet to come in support of its holding in Tijani that the alien’s removal proceedings were not expeditious, and it is apparent that the Tijani Court included at least some time which accrued during judicial review in its conclusion that the petitioner had been detained for two years and four months.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Judulang v. Chertoff