Wieman et al. v. Updegraff et al.
The Court held that Oklahoma loyalty oath legislation violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it did not give individuals the opportunity to abjure membership in subversive organizations.
344 U.S. 183 · No. 14 · 1952 term · Vinson Court
Decided Dec 15, 1952 · argued Nov 16, 1952
First Amendment · Loyalty oath: teachers
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Tom Clark
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed. Wieman et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and its own ruling ends the case.
Wieman 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that Oklahoma loyalty oath legislation violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it did not give individuals the opportunity to abjure membership in subversive organizations. Due process requires that individuals have scienter (knowledge that their membership or support violates the loyalty oath), and the Oklahoma statute did not accommodate this requirement.
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 1952 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Tom ClarkWrote the majority opinion
Hugo BlackWrote a concurrence
Felix FrankfurterWrote a concurrence
William DouglasJoined the majority
Sherman MintonJoined the majority
Harold BurtonJoined the majority
Stanley ReedJoined the majority
Frederick VinsonJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Did not take part: Robert Jackson.
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
- Wieman et al.Governmental employee or job applicant (Oklahoma)
- Respondent
- Updegraff et al.State or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate (Oklahoma)
- 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.
- Provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- 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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Dec 15, 1952DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: reversed. Wieman et al. won.
- Nov 16, 1952ArguedArgued · 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 Oklahoma Supreme Court: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Oklahoma trial 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
4 other argued cases since 1946 on loyalty oath: teachers, newest first.
- Connell v. Higginbotham et al.403 U.S. 207Jun 7, 1971 · 403 U.S. 207First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Keyishian et al. v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York et al.385 U.S. 589Jan 23, 1967 · 385 U.S. 589First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County368 U.S. 278Dec 11, 1961 · 368 U.S. 278First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City350 U.S. 551Apr 9, 1956 · 350 U.S. 551First Amendment5–45–4 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 and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.