Mironescu v. Costner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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.

1. “[T]he Government maintains that regardless of the fact that the Secretary’s extradition of Mironescu would violate federal law if extradition will likely result in Mironescu’s torture, the rule of non-inquiry should preclude habeas review here because courts are ill-equipped to “second-guess[ ] the expert opinion of the State Department” regarding whether torture is likely to occur in Romania. We do not agree. It is important to emphasize that a habeas court reviewing CAT or FARR Act claims would not be called upon to consider whether extradition would further our foreign policy interests or, if so, how much to weigh those interests. Rather, it would be required to answer only the straightforward question of whether a fugitive would likely face torture in the requesting country. American courts routinely answer similar questions.... We see no reason to doubt that district courts could adequately perform this function in this context as well. The Government also maintains that concerns regarding international comity-especially the possibility of delays that habeas review could cause-warrant application of the rule of non-inquiry. That habeas review may delay extradition, or preclude it altogether, cannot negate Mironescu’s right to obtain habe-as relief if he is being detained in violation of federal law.... Indeed, ... ha-beas proceedings regarding claims that extradition would be unconstitutional “will often involve delicate questions of international diplomacy.” Moreover, o”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Martinez v. United States · 529 F. Supp. 2d 543 - Khouzam v. Hogan

2. “no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any judgment ... or any other decision,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Garcia v. Thomas · CASA De Md., Inc. v. Trump

3. “■ any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession!],] punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Turkson v. Holder