Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 583 U.S. 244 - Patchak v. Zinke

Patchak v. Zinke’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 17 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 25 U.S.C. § 1322 · 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (§ 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) · 25 U.S.C. § 5108 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2409A

Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Weinberger v. Salfi

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

  1. “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Definitive Marine Surveys Inc. v. Tran · 140 S. Ct. 1062 - Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
  2. “shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Definitive Marine Surveys Inc. v. Tran · Holmes v. Grooms
  3. “Congress violates Article III when it 'compel[s] ... findings or results under old law,' " but not "when it 'changes the law.' " Id. at 905 (citations omitted, alteration in original). The court interpreted the new statute stripping jurisdiction as a change in law that was not problematic. In so doing, the court explained that "Congress generally does not infringe the judicial power when it strips jurisdiction because, with limited exceptions, a congressional grant of jurisdiction is a prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. Ramos v. Nielsen

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.