InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Murphy et al. v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

The Court ruled that a state cannot compel a witness to provide testimony that may be incriminating under other State/Federal laws, even if it granted immunity under its own laws.

378 U.S. 52 · No. 138 · 1963 term · Warren Court

Decided Jun 15, 1964 · argued Mar 5, 1964

Criminal procedure · Self-incrimination, immunity from prosecution

Overruled precedent

Majority opinion: Arthur Goldberg

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

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

What this ruling means

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, overturned or set aside the rest, and sent the case back for further proceedings that follow its ruling.

Murphy 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.

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the self-incrimination clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that a state cannot compel a witness to provide testimony that may be incriminating under other State/Federal laws, even if it granted immunity under its own laws. Decided on the same day as Malloy v. Hogan (1964), the Supreme Court reconsidered its previous rulings that the Federal Government could compel witness testimony that could be incriminating under a state's laws, and states could similarly compel testimony that would be incriminating under Federal law.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

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 1963 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackWarrenGoldbergBrennanWhiteClarkStewartHarlan

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
Murphy et al.Witness, or person under subpoena
Respondent
Waterfront Commission of New York HarborState commission, board, committee, or authority (Interstate Compact)
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.

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
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Precedent
The Court overruled one of its own earlier decisions.
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 15, 1964DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Murphy et al. won.
  2. Mar 5, 1964ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New Jersey 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

26 other argued cases since 1946 on self-incrimination, immunity from prosecution, newest first.

  1. Trump v. United StatesLandmark · Domestic144 S. Ct. 2312Jul 1, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 2312Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  2. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States598 U.S. 264Apr 19, 2023 · 598 U.S. 264Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  3. United States v. Aloyzas Balsys524 U.S. 666Jun 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 666Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  4. Pillsbury Co. et al. v. Conboy459 U.S. 248Jan 11, 1983 · 459 U.S. 248Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  5. United States v. Apfelbaum445 U.S. 115Mar 3, 1980 · 445 U.S. 115Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  6. New Jersey v. Portash440 U.S. 450Mar 20, 1979 · 440 U.S. 450Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  7. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York v. Cunningham et al.431 U.S. 801Jun 13, 1977 · 431 U.S. 801Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
  8. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, et al. v. Turley et al.414 U.S. 70Nov 19, 1973 · 414 U.S. 70Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  9. Sarno et al. v. Illinois Crime Investigating Commission406 U.S. 482May 22, 1972 · 406 U.S. 482Criminal procedure5–27–2 band
  10. Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation406 U.S. 472May 22, 1972 · 406 U.S. 472Criminal procedure5–27–2 band
  11. Kastigar et al. v. United States406 U.S. 441May 22, 1972 · 406 U.S. 441Criminal procedure5–27–2 band

  12. Piccirillo v. New York400 U.S. 548Jan 25, 1971 · 400 U.S. 548Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  13. George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid et al., Members of New York City Housing Authority, et al.392 U.S. 286Jun 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 286Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  14. Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York et al.392 U.S. 280Jun 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 280Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  15. Gardner v. Broderick, Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al.392 U.S. 273Jun 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 273Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  16. Stevens v. Marks, New York Supreme Court Justice383 U.S. 234Feb 28, 1966 · 383 U.S. 234Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  17. United States v. Welden377 U.S. 95Apr 20, 1964 · 377 U.S. 95Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  18. Lanza v. New York370 U.S. 139Jun 4, 1962 · 370 U.S. 139Criminal procedure7–0Unanimous band
  19. Piemonte v. United States367 U.S. 556Jun 19, 1961 · 367 U.S. 556Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  20. Reina v. United States364 U.S. 507Dec 9, 1960 · 364 U.S. 507Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  21. Mills et al. v. Louisiana360 U.S. 230Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 230Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  22. Ullmann v. United States350 U.S. 422Mar 26, 1956 · 350 U.S. 422Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  23. Adams v. Maryland347 U.S. 179Mar 8, 1954 · 347 U.S. 179Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  24. Smith v. United States337 U.S. 137May 31, 1949 · 337 U.S. 137Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  25. United States v. Hoffman335 U.S. 77Jun 21, 1948 · 335 U.S. 77Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  26. Shapiro v. United States335 U.S. 1Jun 21, 1948 · 335 U.S. 1Criminal procedure5–45–4 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.

Report a correction

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.