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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 91 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 Munaf v. Geren.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Munaf v. Geren Anchor | green | “a remedy for unlawful executive detention.” | 54 |
| 2 | Jonathan O. Madu v. U.S. Attorney General | green | “bars courts from reviewing certain exercises of discretion by the attorney general, it does not proscribe substantive review of the underlying legal basis for those discretionary decisions and actions.” | 9 |
| 3 | Linfors v. United States | green | “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” | 8 |
| 4 | Linfors v. United States | green | “exhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile.” | 6 |
| 5 | Canal A Media Holding LLC v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | green | “congress's comprehensive scheme for judicial review of removal orders.” | 5 |
| 6 | Linfors v. United States | green | “an administrative appeal would be futile.” | 5 |
| 7 | Keila Rosa Camarena v. Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement | green | “and although many other decisions or actions may be part of the deportation process, only claims that arise from one of the covered actions are excluded from a court's review. . . .” | 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.