InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Tinder v. United States

345 U.S. 565 · No. 113 · 1952 term · Vinson Court

Decided May 25, 1953 · argued Apr 9, 1953

Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: miscellaneous

Majority opinion: Stanley Reed

The voteMajorityDissent

5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed and remanded. Tinder won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Tinder 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 1952 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackFrankfurterR. JacksonClarkMintonBurtonReed

Majority(5)

Dissent(3)

Did not take part: Frederick Vinson.

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
TinderPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
Respondent
United StatesUnited States
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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
18 U.S.C. § 1708
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Statutory construction
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. May 25, 1953DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed and remanded. Tinder won.
  2. Apr 9, 1953ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: affirmed.
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

40 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: miscellaneous, newest first.

  1. Ellingburg v. United States607 U.S. 163Jan 20, 2026 · 607 U.S. 163Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  2. Van Buren v. United States141 S. Ct. 1648Jun 3, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1648Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  3. United States. v. Briggs141 S. Ct. 467Dec 10, 2020 · 141 S. Ct. 467Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band

  4. Shular v. United States140 S. Ct. 779Feb 26, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 779Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  5. Quarles v. United States139 S. Ct. 1872Jun 10, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1872Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  6. Stokeling v. United States139 S. Ct. 544Jan 15, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 544Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  7. Nichols v. United States578 U.S. 104Apr 4, 2016 · 578 U.S. 104Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band

  8. Elonis v. United States575 U.S. 723Jun 1, 2015 · 575 U.S. 723Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  9. United States v. Apel571 U.S. 359Feb 26, 2014 · 571 U.S. 359Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  10. Billy Joe Reynolds, Petitioner v. United States565 U.S. 432Jan 23, 2012 · 565 U.S. 432Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  11. Thomas Carr v. United States560 U.S. 438Jun 1, 2010 · 560 U.S. 438Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  12. Deondery Chambers v. United States555 U.S. 122Jan 13, 2009 · 555 U.S. 122Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  13. Larry Begay v. United States553 U.S. 137Apr 16, 2008 · 553 U.S. 137Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  14. Alabama v. Michael Herman Bozeman533 U.S. 146Jun 11, 2001 · 533 U.S. 146Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  15. Lackawanna County District Attorney, et al. v. Edward R. Coss, Jr.532 U.S. 394Apr 25, 2001 · 532 U.S. 394Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  16. Earthy D. Daniels, Jr. v. United States532 U.S. 374Apr 25, 2001 · 532 U.S. 374Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  17. Dewey J. Jones v. United States529 U.S. 848May 22, 2000 · 529 U.S. 848Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  18. Maria Suzuki Ohler v. United States529 U.S. 753May 22, 2000 · 529 U.S. 753Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  19. Robert A. Beck, II v. Ronald M. Prupis, et al.529 U.S. 494Apr 26, 2000 · 529 U.S. 494Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  20. United States v. Roy Lee Johnson529 U.S. 53Mar 1, 2000 · 529 U.S. 53Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  21. Nathaniel Jones v. United States526 U.S. 227Mar 24, 1999 · 526 U.S. 227Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  22. Francois Holloway, aka Abdu Ali v. United States526 U.S. 1Mar 2, 1999 · 526 U.S. 1Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  23. Debra Faye Lewis v. United States523 U.S. 155Mar 9, 1998 · 523 U.S. 155Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  24. Mario Salinas v. United States522 U.S. 52Dec 2, 1997 · 522 U.S. 52Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  25. Darren J. Custis v. United States511 U.S. 485May 23, 1994 · 511 U.S. 485Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  26. United States v. Ralph Stuart Granderson, Jr.511 U.S. 39Mar 22, 1994 · 511 U.S. 39Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  27. Thomas Lee Deal v. United States508 U.S. 129May 17, 1993 · 508 U.S. 129Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  28. Joseph Williams v. United States503 U.S. 193Mar 9, 1992 · 503 U.S. 193Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  29. Hughey v. United States495 U.S. 411May 21, 1990 · 495 U.S. 411Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  30. United States v. Kozminski et al.487 U.S. 931Jun 29, 1988 · 487 U.S. 931Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  31. Dowling v. United States473 U.S. 207Jun 28, 1985 · 473 U.S. 207Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  32. Russell v. United States471 U.S. 858Jun 3, 1985 · 471 U.S. 858Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  33. Russello v. United States464 U.S. 16Nov 1, 1983 · 464 U.S. 16Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  34. United States v. Healy et al.376 U.S. 75Feb 17, 1964 · 376 U.S. 75Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  35. Lynch v. Overholser, Hospital Superintendent369 U.S. 705May 21, 1962 · 369 U.S. 705Criminal procedure6–18–1 band
  36. Milanovich et ux. v. United States365 U.S. 551Mar 20, 1961 · 365 U.S. 551Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  37. Carroll et al. v. United States354 U.S. 394Jun 24, 1957 · 354 U.S. 394Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  38. United States v. American Freightways Co.352 U.S. 1020Mar 4, 1957 · 352 U.S. 1020Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
  39. United States v. Turley352 U.S. 407Feb 25, 1957 · 352 U.S. 407Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  40. Morissette v. United States342 U.S. 246Jan 7, 1952 · 342 U.S. 246Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous 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.