Vartelas v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
566 U.S. 257 · 2012
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 20 U.S.C. § 1091 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (§ 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Padilla v. Kentucky · District of Columbia v. Heller
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]fter Vartelas , it is clear that someone seeking to show that a civil statute is impermissibly retroactive is not required to prove any type of reliance and that the essential inquiry is whether the new statute attaches new legal consequences to events completed before the enactment of the statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“), which remains the governing statutory framework. Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1 et seq . ). In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.