Case Citator › Trop v. Dulles

Trop v. Dulles

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
356 U.S. 86
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
101 of 101
Citing cases (total)
101
Treatment dates
1976–1977
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Trop v. Dulles remains controlling on punitive loss of citizenship, but its Eighth Amendment reasoning was limited in the 2 decisions listed below. The Fifth Circuit and then the Supreme Court held that Trop's reasoning does not extend the Eighth Amendment to corporal punishment in public schools.
More on how this was screened

All 101 flagged citations have been read. A concurrence in Glossip v. Gross (2812588) suggested possible future reconsideration of Trop; the Court did not adopt that view. The two Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation opinions (9909945 and 9910315) report parties' arguments that a proposed rule would overrule Trop. The text of Hutto v. Davis (110594) and one Rabang v. INS opinion (7030239) does not cite Trop. One Hopkins v. Hosemann panel opinion (9418272) was vacated on rehearing en banc. Several newly read opinions and bare certiorari orders likewise did not cite Trop; they were false matches, not missing opinions. Justice Rehnquist's separate stay opinion in Atiyeh v. Capps addressed a district court's reliance on Trop's plurality dicta, not Trop's citizenship holding.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

101 later cases cite Trop v. Dulles; 101 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Trop v. Dulles?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Fifth Circuit declined to extend Trop's Eighth Amendment reasoning to corporal punishment in public schools.

    Ingraham v. Wright · Fifth Circuit · filed

    We are not persuaded by the majority’s argument in the original panel decision that the Supreme Court decision in Trop v. Dulles requires a holding that the Eighth Amendment reaches the administration of‘corporal punishment in public schools:
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court held that Trop's evolving standards analysis concerned criminal punishment and did not make school paddling subject to the Eighth Amendment.

    Ingraham v. Wright · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    This reliance is misplaced. Our Eighth Amendment decisions have referred to “evolving standards of decency,” Trop v. Dulles, supra, at 101, only in determining whether criminal punishments are “cruel and unusual” under the Amendment.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Trop v. Dulles and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace