Glenn v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
690 F.3d 417 · 2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 249 (Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act) · 1 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Laird v. Tatum
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.— (A) In general. — Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person— (i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and (ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if— (I) death results from the offense; or (II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. (B) Circumstances described. — For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that— (i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim- (I) across a State line or national border; or (II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce; (ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in conn”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement in the pre-enforcement context where [1] he alleges an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by statute, and [2] there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a pre-enforcement challenge may be made before the actual completion of an injury-in-fact.”
1 later decision 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.