John Doe v. Mattis’s Empirical Analysis
889 F.3d 745 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3191 · 18 U.S.C. § 4001 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Mazurek v. Armstrong
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a private party seeks injunctive relief against the government, the final two injunction factors-the balance of equities and the public interest-generally call for weighing the benefits to the private party from obtaining an injunction against the harms to the government and the public from being enjoined.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A] citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Zaidan v. Trump“must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the factual basis for his designation as an enemy combatant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Zaidan 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.