Rasul et al. v. Bush President of the United States et al.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
129 federal appellate · 194 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 496 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Munaf v. Geren (2008), John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States (2008)
129 federal appellate · 194 district · 12 state decisions
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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 3841 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 452 · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Brown v. Allen
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 496 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hat is presently at stake is ... whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Petitioners’ allegations — that, although they have engaged neither in combat nor in acts of terrorism against the United States, they have been held in Executive detention for more than two years in territory subject to the long-term, exclusive jurisdiction and .control of the United States, without access to counsel and without being charged with any wrongdoing — unquestionably describe “custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3). Cf. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 277-278 , 110 S.Ct. 1056 , 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring), and cases cited therein.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) an enemy alien; (b) has never been or resided in the United States; (c) was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; (d) was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; (e) for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; (f) and is at all times imprisoned outside the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.