Rodriguez v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis
804 F.3d 1060 · 2015
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), Norelus v. Denny's, Inc. (2010)
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
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. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1537 (§ 507 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · United States v. Salerno · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Addington v. Texas · Kansas v. Hendricks
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exercise the authority in 236 of the [INA] ... to detain the alien in custody, release the alien, and determine the amount of bond, if any, under which the respondent may be released[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A statute permitting indefinite detention of [a noncitizen] would raise a serious constitutional problem. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause forbids the Government to "depriv[e]" any "person ... of ... liberty ... without due process of law." Freedom from imprisonment-from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint-lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects. See Foucha v. Louisiana , 504 U.S. 71 , 80 [ 112 S.Ct. 1780 , 118 L.Ed.2d 437 ] (1992). And this Court has said that government detention violates that Clause unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, see United States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739 , 746 [ 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 ] (1987), or, in certain special and "narrow" nonpunitive "circumstances," Foucha, supra , at 80 [ 112 S.Ct. 1780 ], where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the "individual's constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint." Kansas v. Hendricks , 521 U.S. 346 , 356 [ 117 S.Ct. 2072 , 138 L.Ed.2d 501 ] (1997).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Bond hearings do not restrict the government's legitimate authority to detain inadmissible or deportable non-citizens; rather, they merely require the government to 'justify denial of bond' with clear and convincing 'evidence that an alien is a flight risk or danger to the community.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reid v. Donelan · Sales v. Johnson
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.