InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Toomer et al. v. Witsell et al.

334 U.S. 385 · No. 415 · 1947 term · Vinson Court

Decided Jun 7, 1948 · argued Jan 13, 1948

Civil rights · Residency requirements: durational, plus discrimination against nonresidents

Struck down a state law

Majority opinion: Frederick Vinson

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Toomer et al. won.

What this ruling means

Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court and overturned or set aside the rest.

Toomer et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1947 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianBlackRutledgeMurphyDouglasReedVinsonBurtonFrankfurterR. Jackson

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Toomer et al.Fisherman or fishing company
Respondent
Witsell et al.Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (South Carolina)
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
Kind of law
Constitution
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 7, 1948DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Toomer et al. won.
  2. Jan 13, 1948ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

21 other argued cases since 1946 on residency requirements: durational, plus discrimination against nonresidents, newest first.

  1. Rita L. Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Brenda Roe and Anna Doe etc.Landmark · Freedom of movement526 U.S. 489May 17, 1999 · 526 U.S. 489Civil rights7–27–2 band
  2. Barnard, Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners of the Virgin Islands v. Thorstenn et al.489 U.S. 546Mar 6, 1989 · 489 U.S. 546Civil rights6–36–3 band
  3. Supreme Court of Virginia et al. v. Friedman487 U.S. 59Jun 20, 1988 · 487 U.S. 59Civil rights7–27–2 band
  4. Frazier v. Heebe, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, et al.482 U.S. 641Jun 19, 1987 · 482 U.S. 641Civil rights6–36–3 band
  5. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez et al.476 U.S. 898Jun 16, 1986 · 476 U.S. 898Civil rights6–36–3 band
  6. Hooper et al. v. Bernalillo County Assessor472 U.S. 612Jun 24, 1985 · 472 U.S. 612Civil rights5–36–3 band
  7. Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper470 U.S. 274Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 274Civil rights8–18–1 band
  8. United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden et al.465 U.S. 208Feb 21, 1984 · 465 U.S. 208Civil rights8–18–1 band

  9. Martinez, As Next Friend of Morales v. Bynum, Texas Commissioner of Education, et al.461 U.S. 321May 2, 1983 · 461 U.S. 321Civil rights8–18–1 band
  10. Zobel et ux. v. Williams, Commissioner of Revenue of Alaska, et al.457 U.S. 55Jun 14, 1982 · 457 U.S. 55Civil rights8–18–1 band

  11. Hicklin et al. v. Orbeck, Commissioner, Department of Labor of Alaska, et al.437 U.S. 518Jun 22, 1978 · 437 U.S. 518Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  12. Baldwin et al. v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana et al.436 U.S. 371May 23, 1978 · 436 U.S. 371Civil rights6–36–3 band
  13. Elkins, President, University of Maryland v. Moreno et al.435 U.S. 647Apr 19, 1978 · 435 U.S. 647Civil rights7–27–2 band
  14. Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport District et al.431 U.S. 159May 16, 1977 · 431 U.S. 159Civil rights8–18–1 band
  15. Sosna v. Iowa et al.419 U.S. 393Jan 14, 1975 · 419 U.S. 393Civil rights6–36–3 band
  16. Memorial Hospital et al. v. Maricopa County et al.415 U.S. 250Feb 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 250Civil rights8–18–1 band
  17. Kusper et al. v. Pontikes414 U.S. 51Nov 19, 1973 · 414 U.S. 51Civil rights7–27–2 band
  18. Rosario et al. v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.410 U.S. 752Mar 21, 1973 · 410 U.S. 752Civil rights5–45–4 band
  19. Carter et al. v. Stanton, Director, Marion County Department of Public Welfare, et al.405 U.S. 669Apr 3, 1972 · 405 U.S. 669Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  20. Dunn, Governor of Tennessee, et al. v. Blumstein405 U.S. 330Mar 21, 1972 · 405 U.S. 330Civil rights6–18–1 band
  21. Hall et ux. v. Beals, Clerk and Recorder of El Paso County, et al.396 U.S. 45Nov 24, 1969 · 396 U.S. 45Civil rights6–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.