Louis v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “All Haitian aliens who have arrived in the Southern District of Florida on or after May 20, 1981, who are applying for entry into the United States and also are presently in detention pending exclusion proceedings at various INS detention facilities, for whom an order of exclusion has not been entered and who are either: 1) Unrepresented by counsel; or 2) Represented by counsel pro bono publico assigned by the Haitian Refugee Volunteer Lawyer Task Force of the Dade County Bar Association. 1”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roa v. Howerton · 544 F. Supp. 1004 - Louis v. Nelson

2. “1. Plaintiffs have established that the new detention policy, whereby excludable aliens are placed in detention until they establish to INS’ satisfaction a prima facie claim for admission, was not adopted in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because Defendants failed to give interested persons notice and an opportunity to comment on the new detention policy in the Federal Register 30 days prior to its implementation, the Court finds the rule pursuant to which Plaintiffs are incarcerated to be null and void. By its ruling, the Court does not mean to say that detention in itself is unlawful. That question must be left to another day. The Court holds that when the Government changed its long-standing policy of freely paroling Haitians to a policy of incarcerating them while they litigate their claims for admission to this country, it did so in a procedurally improper way. Those procedures are designed to protect all persons, aliens and citizens alike. Unless and until INS adopts a detention rule or regulation as required by law, this Court will not sanction enforcement of their new detention policy. Accordingly, the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs on their Administrative Procedure Act claim as set forth in Count II of the Complaint. 2. Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were incarcerated because of their race and/or national origin. The evidence shows that the detention policy was not directed a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 544 F. Supp. 1004 - Louis v. Nelson · 544 F. Supp. 819 - Paulis v. Sava

3. “They admitted to the' Court that they made a conscious decision not to promulgate a rule pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The evidence shows that they never seriously undertook the difficult task of drafting a set of guidelines concerning which aliens would be placed in detention. Instead, INS issued general instructions to its field officers to start detaining excludable aliens who do not establish a prima facie claim for admission.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 646 F. Supp. 1300 - Louis v. Nelson · 624 F. Supp. 836 - Louis v. Nelson