Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Clark Vs. Martinez

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 12, 2005

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

77 entries 6 linked 71 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Booker US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  2. Lowe Vs. Sec US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1985
  3. Holder Vs. Hall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1994
  4. Crowell Vs. Benson US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1932
  5. Leocal Vs. Ashcroft US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 2004
  6. Landon Vs. Plasencia US Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1982
  7. Syllabus October Term, 2004 Clark V. Martinez
    Search
  8. Court of the United States Clark, Field Office Director, Seattle, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Et Al. V. Martinez
    Search
  9. In Zadvydas v. Davis
    Search
  10. the same statutory text a different meaning depending on the characteristics of the aliens involved. Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  11. U. S. 22 , Raygor v. Regents
    Search
  12. of Univ. of Minn., 534 U. S. 533 , and Jinks v. Richland
    Search
  13. Benitez v. Rozos
    Search
  14. and Customs Enforcement, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Clark v. Martinez
    Search
  15. Opinion of the Court Clark V. Martinez
    Search
  16. arrived in the United States from Cuba in June 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift, see Palma v. Verdeyen
    Search
  17. Benitez v. Wallis
    Search
  18. foreseeable, and ordered the INS to release Martinez under conditions that the INS believed appropriate. Martinez v. Smith
    Search
  19. p. 2a. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed, citing its decision in Xi v. INS
    Search
  20. F. 3d 832 (2002). Martinez v. Ashcroft
    Search
  21. but nonetheless denied the petition. Benitez v. Wallis
    Search
  22. pp. 45, 48. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the dissent in Xi . Benitez v. Wallis
    Search
  23. F. 3d 1289 (2003). We granted certiorari in both cases. Benitez v. Wallis
    Search
  24. Crawford v. Martinez
    Search
  25. those ordered removed whom the Secretary determines to be either a risk to the community or a flight risk. In Zadvydas v. Davis
    Search
  26. would not support the same limitation. The lowest common denominator, as it were, must govern. See, e.g., Leocal v. Ashcroft
    Search
  27. The canon is not a method of adjudicating constitutional questions by other means. See, e.g. , NLRB v. Catholic
    Search
  28. presumption that Congress did not intend the alternative which raises serious constitutional doubts. See Rust v. Sullivan
    Search
  29. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
    Search
  30. subject to change depending on the presence or absence of constitutional concerns in each individual case. Cf. Harris v. United
    Search
  31. meaning when it is applied to nonadmitted aliens, the Government relies most prominently upon our decision in Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  32. and as applied to all claimants, it permits judicial review of the employment finding. What corresponds to Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  33. d). Raygor v. Regents
    Search
  34. A subsequent decision, Jinks v. Richland
    Search
  35. and the canon functions as a means of choosing between them . See, e.g. , Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  36. Attorney General v. Delaware
    Search
  37. see Landon v. Plasencia
    Search
  38. of his petition. Lewis v. Continental
    Search
  39. s contentions, post , at 8, our decision in Salinas v. United
    Search
  40. a)(6) (2000 ed., Supp. II)). Clark v. Martinez
    Search
  41. than six months after they have been ordered removed. For one thing, the 6-month presumption we described in Zadvydas v. Davis
    Search
  42. Thomas, J., Dissenting Clark V. Martinez
    Search
  43. Nevertheless, in Zadvydas v. Davis
    Search
  44. It attempts to distinguish Jinks v. Richland
    Search
  45. County, 538 U. S. 456 (2003), and Raygor v. Regents
    Search
  46. principle is also in tension with Salinas v. United
    Search
  47. squared with my analysis. That support is a plurality opinion of this Court (reaffirmed by footnote dictum in Leocal v. Ashcroft
    Search
  48. subjected to criminal prosecution have adequate notice of the conduct that the law prohibits. Cf., e.g., McBoyle v. United
    Search
  49. Public Citizen v. Department
    Search
  50. habeas actions challenging removal orders. Chmakov v. Blackman
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial