New York v. O'Neill
The Court held that a Florida statute enacting the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses, letting courts in two states agree to subpoena a witness, did not on its face violate the Privileges and Immunities or Due Process Clauses.· AI-written
359 U.S. 1 · No. 53 · 1958 term · Warren Court
Decided Mar 2, 1959 · argued Nov 20, 1958
Criminal procedure · Miscellaneous criminal procedure
Majority opinion: Felix Frankfurter
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Reversed and remanded. New York won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
New York 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.
New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Florida statute, established by the enactment of the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings which established a procedure for a witness to be subpoened with the agreement of a court in a trial state and a court in the state of the witness, on its face does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2 of the Constitution nor the Privileges and Immunities or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time, the uniform law had been adopted in 42 states of the United States, as well as Puerto Rico.
Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote the opinion for the court. Justice William O. Douglas, joined by Justice Hugo Black, dissented. The dissenting justices were of the view that a state could only require a person to travel from one state to another if he were a fugitive from justice.
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 1958 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Felix FrankfurterWrote the majority opinion
Earl WarrenJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Charles WhittakerJoined the majority
John HarlanJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
Hugo BlackJoined a dissent
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
- New YorkState (New York)
- Respondent
- O'NeillWitness, or person under subpoena
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose 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
- Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (privileges and immunities clause)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
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.
- Mar 2, 1959DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed and remanded. New York won.
- Nov 20, 1958ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Florida Supreme Court: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Florida 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
16 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous criminal procedure, newest first.
- Wolford v. Lopez146 S. Ct. 2032Jun 25, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2032Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. RahimiLandmark · Second Amendment rights144 S. Ct. 1889Jun 21, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1889Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights8–18–1 band
- Smith v. United States599 U.S. 236Jun 15, 2023 · 599 U.S. 236Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Reed v. Goertz598 U.S. 230Apr 19, 2023 · 598 U.S. 230Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. BruenLandmark · Second Amendment rights141 S. Ct. 2111Jun 23, 2022 · 141 S. Ct. 2111Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights6–36–3 band
- Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.Landmark · Second Amendment rights561 U.S. 742Jun 28, 2010 · 561 U.S. 742Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights5–45–4 band
- District of Columbia v. HellerLandmark · Second Amendment rights554 U.S. 570Jun 26, 2008 · 554 U.S. 570Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights5–45–4 band
- Charles B. Miller, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, et al., v. Richard A. French, et al.530 U.S. 327Jun 19, 2000 · 530 U.S. 327Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Scott Leslie Carmell v. Texas529 U.S. 513May 1, 2000 · 529 U.S. 513Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Patrick Ramirez v. Indiana471 U.S. 147Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 147Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- United States v. Miller471 U.S. 130Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 130Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Waller v. Georgia467 U.S. 39May 21, 1984 · 467 U.S. 39Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Payne v. Madigan, Warden366 U.S. 761Jun 5, 1961 · 366 U.S. 761Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- United States v. Sharpnack355 U.S. 286Jan 13, 1958 · 355 U.S. 286Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Dowd, Warden, v. United States ex rel. Cook340 U.S. 206Jan 2, 1951 · 340 U.S. 206Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Haupt v. United States330 U.S. 631Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 631Criminal procedure8–18–1 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, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.