Hamad v. Gates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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.

1. “(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Al Janko v. Gates · Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald

2. “is overcome only if something “in the statute’s text or historical context makes it ‘evident’ that: [the Legislature], faced -with the limitations imposed by the Constitution, would have preferred” no statute at all to a statute with the invalid part excised. Free Enterprise Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 , 130 S.Ct. 3138 , 3162, 177 L.Ed.2d 706 (2010) (quoting Alaska Airlines, 480 U.S. [678] at 684, 107 S.Ct. 1476 [ 94 L.Ed.2d 661 (1987)]). In conducting this inquiry, “we must retain those portions of the Act that are (1) constitutionally valid, (2) capable of functioning independently, and (3) consistent with [the Legislature’s] basic objectives in enacting the statute.” [U.S. v.] Booker, 543 U.S. [220] at 258-59, 125 S.Ct. 738 [ 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)] (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [The Legislature’s] intent serves as the basis for this severability test. Alaska Airlines, 480 U.S. at 685 , 107 S.Ct. 1476 , 94 L.Ed.2d 661 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Tran