Humanitarian Law Proj. v. United States Dep't Of Just., 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Humanitarian Law Proj. v. United States Dep't Of Just., 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“hlp en banc”
44 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Humanitarian Law v. Mukasey (ca9, 2009-01-05)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Humanitarian Law v. Mukasey (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
hlp en banc
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2007 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
hlp en banc
cited Cited "see" Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
SCOTUS · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See ibid.
discussed Cited "see" Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2×)
SCOTUS · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See ibid.
examined Cited "see" Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir.2003) (“HLP II”), vacated, 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed Cited "see" Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. United States Department of the Treasury
D. Or. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.2000), partly aff'd en banc, 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.2004), and on remand, Humanitarian Law Project v. Gonzales, 380 F.Supp.2d 1134 (C.D.Cal.2005), aff'd, 509 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2007).
examined Cited "see" Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir.2003) (“HLP II”), vacated, 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Abdi (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D. Ohio · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Justice, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir.2003) (“HLP II”), vacated after statutory amendment, 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.2004).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Assi
E.D. Mich. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humanitarian Law Project, 393 F.3d at 902. 9 .
examined Cited "see" Humanitarian Law Project v. Gonzales (3×)
C.D. Cal. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Justice, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir.2003) (“HLP II”), vacated, 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Center for Biological Diversit v. Ken Salazar
9th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 352 F.3d 382 , 393 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that four issues decided on appeal from a preliminary injunction decision were considered in full and resolved as matters of law and thus, the law of the case doctrine prevented further review of that issue in a subsequent appeal), vacated on other grounds by 393 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.2004); see also Ranchers Cattlemen, 499 F.3d at 1114 (“A fully considered appellate ruling on an issue of law made on a preliminary injunction appeal ... become[s] the law of the case for further proceedings …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Humanitarian Law Project Ralph Fertig Ilankai Thamil Sangam Tamils of Northern California Tamil Welfare and Human Rights Committee Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America World Tamil Coordinating Committee Nagalingam Jeyalingam
v.
United States Department of Justice United States Department of State John Ashcroft, Attorney General Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State
02-44082.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 21, 2004.
393 F.3d 902
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 84%
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)

393 F.3d 902

HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT; Ralph Fertig; Ilankai Thamil Sangam; Tamils of Northern California; Tamil Welfare and Human Rights Committee; Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America; World Tamil Coordinating Committee; Nagalingam Jeyalingam, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; United States Department of State; John Ashcroft, Attorney General; Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.

No. 02-44082.

No. 02-44083.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 14, 2004.

Filed December 21, 2004.

David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.; Nancy Chang, Center For Constitutional Rights, New York, NY, for the plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees.

Douglas N. Letter, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellees-cross-appellants.

Stephen P. Berzon, Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, San Francisco, CA; Abbe David Lowell, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Washington, DC; Jack Dicanio, Proskauer Rose, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus Roya Rahmani.

Jameel Jaffer, Ann Beeson and Melissa Goodman, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for amicus American Civil Liberties Union, et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-01971-ABC.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI, KLEINFELD, THOMAS, GRABER, McKEOWN, WARDLAW, GOULD, TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

With respect to the appellants' First Amendment challenge to sections 302 and 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we affirm the district court's order dated October 2, 2001, for the reasons set out in Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.2000).[1] In light of Congress's recent amendment to the challenged statute, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, we affirm the judgment in part, as set forth above, vacate the judgment and injunction regarding the terms "personnel" and "training," and remand to the district court for further proceedings, if any, as appropriate. We decline to reach any other issue urged by the parties.

2

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

Notes:

1

Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Justice, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir.2003), is vacated.