Hem v. Maurer’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.3d 1185 · 2006
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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) · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · North Carolina v. Pearce · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
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.
“Congress added a new provision codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5). Subsection (a)(5), entitled “Exclusive Means of Review,” provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition for review’ filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this chapter, except as provided in subsection (e) of this section. Thus, this section makes a petition for review to an appellate court the sole means of review of an order of removal issued under the INA, and specifically excludes review under the habeas statutes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, [an objective reliance] rule is more directly tied to the basic aim of retroac- tivity analysis: in determining whether it is appropriate to presume Congress concluded that the benefits of a new law did not warrant disturbance of interests existing under prior law, it makes sense to look at the objective group-based interests that Congress could practically have assessed ex ante. Second, this rule is consistent with the Supreme Court’s analyses in Landgraf and its progeny, none of which required actual reliance. Third, and most immediately pertinent here, the objective approach is consistent with the actual holding in St. Cyr— the Court’s most reliance-focused decision — which precluded retroactive application of IIRIRA’s elimination of § 212(c) eligibility to all aliens who reasonably could have relied on prior law when pleading guilty, rather than to just those aliens who actually did so rely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, with the exception of a single passing reference to another case, Rankine never once mentions the presumption against retroactivity. As the Court made clear in Landgraf and its progeny, however, this presumption informs every step of the Landgraf inquiry. Second, the particular strategic decisions of the individual petitioners are given dis-positive weight in the retroactivity analysis, not whether they, as a class, faced new legal consequences to their completed conduct. Finally, Rankine appears to turn the presumption against retroac-tivity on its head by demanding that petitioners point to conduct on their part that reflects an intention to preserve their eligibility for relief under § 212(c) by going to trial.”
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.