68 F. Supp. 2d 206 - Maria v. McElroy’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (§ 238 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Santosky v. Kramer · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Lindh v. Murphy
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article 23(1) of the ICCPR provides that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Implicit in this right is the right of family members to live together.... To protect the fundamental right of families to live together, [Article 17 of] the ICCPR provides that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his ... family....” ... Applying this requirement in the context of deportation laws, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has explicitly recognized that deportation from a country in which close family members reside can constitute an interference with family life....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Article 23(1) of the ICCPR provides that ‘[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.’ Implicit in this right is the right of family members to live together. To protect the fundamental right of families to live together, the ICCPR provides that ‘[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his ... family....’ Applying this requirement in the context of deportation laws, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has explicitly recognized that deportation from a country in which close family members reside can constitute an interference with family life.... By specifying that interference with family shall be ‘unlawful’ and shall not be arbitrary,’ the ICCPR prevents a nation from separating families in a manner that, while in accordance with its domestic law, is nonetheless unreasonable and in conflict with the underlying provisions of the ICCPR. As explained by the authoritative United Nations Human Rights Committee, ‘the introduction of the concept of arbitrariness is intended to guarantee that even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims, and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances.... ’ Article 13 of the ICCPR requires that an alien lawfully residing in a territory ‘be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion’ unless compelling interests of national security ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Id. 22 Here, the same concerns are present. When Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.