Hamdan v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
267 federal appellate · 107 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 613 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Medellin v. Texas (2008), Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States Ex Rel. Wilson (2010)
267 federal appellate · 107 district · 16 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
reviewedHamdan v. Rumsfeld (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 801 (Military Justice Act of 1968) · 10 U.S.C. § 802 · 10 U.S.C. § 810 · 10 U.S.C. § 816 · 10 U.S.C. § 818 · 10 U.S.C. § 819 · 10 U.S.C. § 821 · 10 U.S.C. § 825
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Younger v. Harris · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Lindh v. Murphy · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr
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 613 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. (2) Except as provided in [section 1005(e)(2) and (e)(3) of the DTA], no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a negative inference may be drawn from the exclusion of language from one statutory provision that is included in other provisions of the same statute.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special ag”
3 later decisions 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.