764 F. Supp. 2d 787 - Lebron v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4001 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In light of this quite extraordinary litigation history, the remarkable circum stances regarding the President’s direct written order designating Padilla an enemy combatant, and the President’s direction to subordinate officials to detain Padilla, it is hard for the Court to imagine a credible argument that the alleged unlawfulness of Padilla’s designation as an enemy combatant and detention were “clearly established” at that time. The strikingly varying judicial decisions appear to be the very definition of unsettled law, and the Fourth Circuit’s order, which is the law of the case, actually finds the detention and designation lawful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Padilla v. Yoo“At the time of ... Padilla’s detention by the Department of Defense, there were few “bright lines” establishing controlling law on the rights of enemy combatants. No court had specifically and definitively addressed the rights of enemy combatants, and the Department of Justice had officially sanctioned the use of the techniques in question. While it is true there was vigorous intra-governmental debate on this issue during Padilla’s detention, the qualified immunity case law makes clear that government officials are not charged with predicting the outcome of legal challenges or to resolve open questions of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Padilla v. Yoo
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.