Tabbaa v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.3d 89 · 2007
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Chovan (2013), Cameron v. City of New York (2010)
7 federal appellate · 4 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.
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1433 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1582 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 6 U.S.C. § 111 · 6 U.S.C. § 202 · 6 U.S.C. § 542
Relies on Scott v. Harris · United States v. Sharpe · Roberts v. United States Jaycees · Davis v. Mississippi · Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) identify and examine all persons associated with any of the Islamic conferences at issue who sought entry into the United States, (b) contact CBP’s National Targeting Center upon encountering conference participants “in order to determine whether individuals seeking to enter the United States posed a particular threat,” and (c) question conference attendees about their activities during their trip and examine their documentation and person and vehicles for “evidence of terrorist-related activities, such as plans, money, or even weapons.” The [policy] also permitted, but did not require, border officials to fingerprint and photograph conference attendees. The purpose of these measures — which were designed to process travelers who are suspected terrorists — was to “confirm each individual’s identity and verify that they were not on any watch list of suspected terrorists, or seeking to use the conference as a cover for crossing the U.S. border, or otherwise involved in illegal activity, or carrying any illegal weapons, documents, monetary instruments, or any other prohibited items across the border.” Attendance at one of the Islamic conferences at issue was the sole factor that triggered the enhanced processing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Routine searches include those searches of outer clothing, luggage, a purse, wallet, pockets, or shoes which, unlike strip searches, do not substantially infringe on a traveler's privacy rights.”); United States v. Silva, 715 F.2d 43 , 47 (2d Cir.1983) (noting that questions about “citizenship, the length and purpose of [an applicant's] trip to Canada, [and] what items she had acquired or bought in Canada” are all routine); see also United Stales v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 , 155 n. 3, 124 S.Ct. 1582 , 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs unquestionably had a protected right to express themselves through association at the [Reviving the Islamic Spirit] Conference.”
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.