Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 27 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States Ex Rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States Ex Rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy Anchor | green | “it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien.” | 17 |
| 2 | Roberto Saavedra Bruno,appellants v. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State,appellees | green | “consular visa determinations are not subject to judicial review.” | 6 |
| 3 | Adrian Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office | green | “moving the plaintiffs' petitions to the front of the line would disrupt competing agency priorities with no overall improvement in the uscis backlog.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.