Case Citator › Zadvydas v. Davis

Zadvydas v. Davis

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
533 U.S. 678
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
250 of 250
Citing cases (total)
3,854
Treatment dates
2001
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Zadvydas v. Davis remains controlling on post-removal detention, although one district court criticized its interpretation of the detention statute while applying it. All 250 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed criticism is listed below.
More on how this was screened

Gonzalez Barrera v. United States Attorney General dismissed a detention claim as premature under Zadvydas's six-month presumption. It did not establish that the petitioner had an earlier period of detention to count.

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.

3,854 later cases cite Zadvydas v. Davis; 250 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 Zadvydas v. Davis?

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

Criticized

  • The court adopted a report that called Zadvydas's reading of the detention statute strained, while granting relief under that reading.

    Borrero v. Aljets · District of Minnesota · filed

    Indeed, so anxious was the Zadvydas Court to avoid the "serious” and "obvious” 121 S.Ct. at 2500, constitutional question presented by indefinite and potentially permanent detention, that it adopted what can only charitably be called a "strained” construction of the statute. A more straight forward and arguably constitutional construction of the statute would have simply extended the holding of Mezei to removable aliens, as urged by the government.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Zadvydas v. Davis 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