778 F. Supp. 2d 1 - SAI v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 7512 · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991)
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. · Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration · Jones v. United States · Keener v. United States
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The principle that the courts lack jurisdiction over political questions that are by their nature 'committed to the political branches to the exclusion of the judiciary' is as old as the fundamental principle of judicial review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sai v. Trump“). Although Sai relied on different legal theories in that lawsuit, his purpose there was the same as his purpose here: to challenge the United States' recognition of the "Republic of Hawaii as a sovereign entity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sai v. Trump“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sai v. Trump
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.