Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Zadvydas Vs. Davis

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 28, 2001

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

83 entries 15 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. Crowell Vs. Benson US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1932
  2. Kansas Vs. Hendricks US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1996
  3. Carlson Vs. Landon US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952
  4. Phillips Vs. Commissioner US Supreme Court · May 25, 1931
  5. Leng May Ma Vs. Barber US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1958
  6. Johnson Vs. Eisentrager US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 1950
  7. Mathews Vs. Diaz US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1976
  8. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  9. Miller Vs. French US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2000
  10. County of Riverside Vs. Mclaughlin US Supreme Court · May 13, 1991
  11. Landon Vs. Plasencia US Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1982
  12. Harisiades Vs. Shaughnessy US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952
  13. Sinclair Refining Co. Vs. Atkinson US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1962
  14. United States Vs. Witkovich US Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1957
  15. Reno Vs. Flores US Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1992
  16. U.S. 678 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Zadvydas V. Davis
    Search
  17. Together with No. 00-38, Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Kim
    Search
  18. body unreviewable authority to make determinations implicating fundamental rights. Pp. 690-692. (b) Shaughnessy v. United
    Search
  19. In October 1997, a Federal District Court granted that writ and ordered him released under supervision. Zadvydas v. Caplinger
    Search
  20. confinement, contrary to the Constitution. Id., at 1027. The Fifth Circuit reversed this decision. Zadvydas v. Underdown
    Search
  21. Binh Phan v. Reno
    Search
  22. Ma released. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 00-38, at 60a-61a. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Ma's release. Kim Ho Ma v. Reno
    Search
  23. writs in both cases, agreeing to consider both statutory and related constitutional questions. See also Duy Dac Ho v. Greene
    Search
  24. related detention, including challenges to the validity of a deportation order, in habeas proceedings. See Heikkila v. Barber
    Search
  25. brought in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (AP A), became available. See Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro
    Search
  26. method for obtaining review of continued custody after a deportation order had become final. See Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS
    Search
  27. see also United States v. X-Citement
    Search
  28. United States v. Jin
    Search
  29. cf. Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  30. limitations into other immigration statutes in order to avoid their constitutional invalidation. See United States v. Witkovich
    Search
  31. detention, or other forms of physical restraint-lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects. See Foucha v. Louisiana
    Search
  32. unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, see United States v. Salerno
    Search
  33. flight-is weak or nonexistent where removal seems a remote possibility at best. As this Court said in Jackson v. Indiana
    Search
  34. Walpole v. Hill
    Search
  35. The Constitution demands greater procedural protection even for property. See South Carolina v. Regan
    Search
  36. from a constitutional perspective, alien status itself can justify indefinite detention, and points to Shaughnessy v. United
    Search
  37. has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never entered runs throughout immigration law. See Kaplan v. Tod
    Search
  38. to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders. See United States v. VerdugoUrquidez
    Search
  39. United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. See Plyler v. Doe
    Search
  40. Kwong Hai Ghew v. Golding
    Search
  41. that the Due Process 694 Clause protects an alien subject to a final order of deportation, see Wong Wing v. United
    Search
  42. though the nature of that protection may vary depending upon status and circumstance, see Landon v. Plasencia
    Search
  43. and Legislative Branch decisionmaking in that area. Brief for Respondents in No. 99-7791, at 17, 20 (citing Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
    Search
  44. U. S. 580 , 588-589 (1952)). But that power is subject to important constitutional limitations. See INS v. Chadha
    Search
  45. U. S. 327 , 336 (2000) (quoting Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson
    Search
  46. Stat. 889, 890, to mean that deportation-related detention must end within a reasonable time, Spector v. Landon
    Search
  47. Doukas v. Wiley
    Search
  48. Ross v. Wallis
    Search
  49. Brown v. Allen
    Search
  50. expert agencies decisionmaking leeway in matters that invoke their expertise. See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial