Parhat v. Gates’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.3d 834 · 2008
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 44 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Al-Bihani v. Obama (2010), Barhoumi v. Obama (2010)
24 federal appellate · 44 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 10 U.S.C. § 801 (Military Justice Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 50 U.S.C. § 1541
Relies on Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal. · Rugendorf v. United States · Hamdan v. Rumsfeld · Boumediene v. Bush · United States v. Rezaq
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The government’s rationale for protection is brief. In support of protecting [names and/or identifying information of United States Government personnel], the motion states: “It is appropriate to protect from public disclosure unclassified information identifying Government personnel because ... [t]he risks to the safety of those personnel [, particularly those who often deploy to locations abroad,] would be heightened if their involvement in the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo were made public.” In support of protecting [any sensitive law enforcement information], the motion states: “It is ... appropriate to protect Law Enforcement Sensitive material” because public disclosure “could harm the Government’s ongoing law enforcement activities related to the global war against al Qaeda and its supporters.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in virtually every instance, the documents do not say who “reported” or “said” or “suspected” those things. Nor do they provide any of the underlying reporting upon which the documents’ bottom-line assertions are founded, nor any assessment of the reliability of that reporting. Because of those omissions, the Tribunal could not and this court cannot assess the reliability of the assertions in the documents. And because of this deficiency, those bare assertions cannot sustain the determination that [petitioner] is an enemy combatant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.