Bremer v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.3d 925 · 2016
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 16911 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 704 · 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (§ 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Heckler v. Chaney · Austin v. United States · Smith v. Doe
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“restrictive measures on sex offenders adjudged to be dangerous is 'a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective and has been historically so regarded,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the dangers that convicted sex offenders may pose to new immigrants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“given the nature and severity of many of the underlying offenses and the intent of the [Adam Walsh Act],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gebhardt v. Nielsen
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.