Roth, Attorney General of Michigan, v. Delano, Comptroller of the Currency, et al.
338 U.S. 226 · No. 24 · 1949 term · Vinson Court
Decided Nov 7, 1949 · argued Oct 14, 1949
Judicial power · No merits: adequate non-federal grounds for decision
Majority opinion: Robert Jackson
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Vacated and remanded. Roth, Attorney General of Michigan, won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Roth, Attorney General of Michigan, 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.
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1949 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Robert JacksonWrote the majority opinion
Hugo BlackJoined the majority
Felix FrankfurterJoined the majority
Harold BurtonJoined the majority
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Stanley ReedJoined the majority
Frederick VinsonJoined the majority
Sherman MintonJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Did not take part: William Douglas.
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Roth, Attorney General of Michigan,Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Michigan)
- Respondent
- Delano, Comptroller of the Currency, et al.Comptroller of Currency
- 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.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Nov 7, 1949DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: vacated and remanded. Roth, Attorney General of Michigan, won.
- Oct 14, 1949ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Michigan 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
15 other argued cases since 1946 on no merits: adequate non-federal grounds for decision, newest first.
- Remon Lee v. Mike Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center534 U.S. 362Jan 22, 2002 · 534 U.S. 362Judicial power6–36–3 band
- International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Davis476 U.S. 380May 27, 1986 · 476 U.S. 380Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Colorado v. Nunez465 U.S. 324Feb 21, 1984 · 465 U.S. 324Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Florida v. Casal et al.462 U.S. 637Jun 17, 1983 · 462 U.S. 637Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Paschall et al. v. Christie-Stewart, Inc., et al.414 U.S. 100Nov 19, 1973 · 414 U.S. 100Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Department of Mental Hygiene of California v. Kirchner, Administratrix380 U.S. 194Mar 8, 1965 · 380 U.S. 194Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Jankovich et al., Doing Business As Calumet Aviation Co. v. Indiana Toll Road Commission379 U.S. 487Jan 18, 1965 · 379 U.S. 487Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Wilson et al. v. Loew's Incorporated et al.355 U.S. 597Mar 3, 1958 · 355 U.S. 597Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Black et al. v. Cutter Laboratories351 U.S. 292Jun 4, 1956 · 351 U.S. 292Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Durley v. Mayo, Custodian, Florida State Prison351 U.S. 277Jun 4, 1956 · 351 U.S. 277Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Edelman v. California344 U.S. 357Jan 12, 1953 · 344 U.S. 357Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Dixon v. Duffy, Warden344 U.S. 143Dec 8, 1952 · 344 U.S. 143Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Hammerstein v. Superior Court of California et al.341 U.S. 491May 28, 1951 · 341 U.S. 491Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Hedgebeth v. North Carolina334 U.S. 806Jun 14, 1948 · 334 U.S. 806Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Rescue Army et al. v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles331 U.S. 549Jun 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 549Judicial power7–27–2 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.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.