Jennings v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 39 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 305 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Lolong v. Gonzales (2007), Nasrallah v. Barr (2020)
34 federal appellate · 39 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3141 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3521 (Witness Security Reform Act of 1984) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Morrissey v. Brewer · Bell v. Wolfish · United States v. Salerno · 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 305 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[were] not asking for review of an order of removal ... [were] not challenging the decision to detain them in the first place or to seek removal; and ... [were] not even challenging any part of the process by which their removability will be determined.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the extent of the Government's detention authority”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nder the constitutional-avoidance canon, when statutory language is susceptible of multiple interpretations, a court may shun an interpretation that raises serious constitutional doubts and instead may adopt an alternative that avoids those problems. But a court relying on that canon still must interpret the statute, not rewrite it.”
7 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.