Alli v. Decker’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1342 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202 · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226A (§ 236a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Brown v. Allen · Steffel v. Thompson · Samuels v. J Mackell Fernandez
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court adopts a reasonableness standard administered by the federal courts because this approach avoids constitutional concerns while working the least amount of damage to the statutory scheme Congress created.... The intent of Congress in adopting § 1226(c) was to severely limit, if not eliminate, the discretion of the Attorney General to release deportable criminal aliens pending removal proceedings. As the Demore court noted, Congress had before it evidence that, when the Attorney General had broad discretion to conduct individualized bond hearings and to release criminal aliens from custody during their removal proceedings ... other considerations such as limitations on funding and detention space, affected release determinations. 538 U.S. at 519 , 123 S.Ct. 1708 .... The construction of § 1226(c) adopted by the Court implements Congress’s intention of assuring attendance at removal proceedings by permitting mandatory detention, to the extent constitutionally permissible, and connecting the duration of detention to the time reasonably necessary to complete such proceedings. That a habeas court determines whether continued detention is justified also addresses Congress’s concern that release decisions be based on traditional bail considerations such as risk of flight and danger to the community.... [F]unel[ing] deportable criminal aliens to § 1226(a) ... [involves] a portion of the statute which Congress never intended to apply to such aliens, and requires the Attorney ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Alli v. Decker“(1) whether the detention has continued beyond the average times necessary for completion of removal proceedings which were identified in Demore 8 ; (2) the probable extent of future removal proceedings; (3) the likelihood that removal proceedings will actually result in removal; and (4) the conduct of both the alien and the government during the removal proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.