Vieth v. Jubelirer’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
117 federal appellate · 57 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 588 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Arizona v. Gant (2009), Alleyne v. United States (2013)
117 federal appellate · 57 district · 116 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Pennsylvania Middle District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 2 U.S.C. § 2C · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Baker v. Carr · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.
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 588 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or [4] the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or [5] an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or [6] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage“disfavored treatment by reason of their views.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"The judicial Power” created by Article III, § 1, of the Constitution is not whatever judges choose to do, see Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 , 487, 102 S.Ct. 752 , 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982); cf. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 , 332-33, 119 S.Ct. 1961 , 144 L.Ed.2d 319 (1999), or even whatever Congress chooses to assign them, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 , 576-77, 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 , 110-14, 68 S.Ct. 431 , 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948). It is the power to act in the manner traditional for English and American courts. One of the most obvious limitations imposed by that requirement is that judicial action must be governed by standard, by rule. Laws promulgated by the Legislative Branch can be inconsistent, illogical, and ad hoc; law pronounced by the courts must be principled, rational, and based upon reasoned distinctions.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.