InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Harris, U.S. District Judge (Walker, Real Party in Interest) v. Nelson, Warden

394 U.S. 286 · No. 199 · 1968 term · Warren Court

Decided Mar 24, 1969 · argued Dec 9, 1968

Criminal procedure · Discovery and inspection

Majority opinion: Abe Fortas

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed and remanded. Harris, U.S. District Judge (Walker, Real Party in Interest) won.

What this ruling means

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

Harris, U.S. District Judge (Walker, Real Party in Interest) 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 1968 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasWarrenMarshallFortasBrennanWhiteBlackStewartHarlan

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

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
Harris, U.S. District Judge (Walker, Real Party in Interest)Judge (United States)
Respondent
Nelson, WardenState (California)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently, and the question was important
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
28 U.S.C. § 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)
Kind of law
Federal Statute
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. Mar 24, 1969DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Harris, U.S. District Judge (Walker, Real Party in Interest) won.
  2. Dec 9, 1968ArguedArgued · 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, and the question was important.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: vacated.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

37 other argued cases since 1946 on discovery and inspection, newest first.

  1. Trump v. VanceLandmark · Domestic140 S. Ct. 2412Jul 9, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2412Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  2. Turner v. United States137 S. Ct. 1885Jun 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1885Criminal procedure6–27–2 band

  3. Juan Smith v. Burl Cain, Warden565 U.S. 73Jan 10, 2012 · 565 U.S. 73Criminal procedure8–18–1 band

  4. District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. William G. Osborne557 U.S. 52Jun 18, 2009 · 557 U.S. 52Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  5. Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden556 U.S. 449Apr 28, 2009 · 556 U.S. 449Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  6. Delma Banks, Jr. v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division540 U.S. 668Feb 24, 2004 · 540 U.S. 668Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  7. Swidler & Berlin and James Hamilton v. United States524 U.S. 399Jun 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 399Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  8. William Bracy v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden520 U.S. 899Jun 9, 1997 · 520 U.S. 899Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  9. United States v. Christopher Lee Armstrong et al.517 U.S. 456May 13, 1996 · 517 U.S. 456Criminal procedure8–18–1 band

  10. Curtis Lee Kyles v. John P. Whitley, Warden514 U.S. 419Apr 19, 1995 · 514 U.S. 419Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  11. United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., et al.498 U.S. 292Jan 22, 1991 · 498 U.S. 292Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  12. United States v. Zolin et al.491 U.S. 554Jun 21, 1989 · 491 U.S. 554Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  13. United States Department of Justice et al. v. Julian et al.486 U.S. 1May 16, 1988 · 486 U.S. 1Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  14. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie480 U.S. 39Feb 24, 1987 · 480 U.S. 39Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  15. United States v. Bagley473 U.S. 667Jul 2, 1985 · 473 U.S. 667Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  16. Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., et al.460 U.S. 557Mar 29, 1983 · 460 U.S. 557Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  17. Douglas Oil Company of California et al. v. Petrol Stops Northwest et al.441 U.S. 211Apr 18, 1979 · 441 U.S. 211Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  18. United States et al. v. Lasalle National Bank et al.437 U.S. 298Jun 19, 1978 · 437 U.S. 298Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  19. Kerr et al. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California et al.426 U.S. 394Jun 14, 1976 · 426 U.S. 394Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  20. Goldberg v. United States425 U.S. 94Mar 30, 1976 · 425 U.S. 94Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  21. United States v. Nobles422 U.S. 225Jun 23, 1975 · 422 U.S. 225Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  22. Test v. United States420 U.S. 28Jan 27, 1975 · 420 U.S. 28Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  23. United States v. Nixon, President of the United States, et al.Landmark · Domestic418 U.S. 683Jul 24, 1974 · 418 U.S. 683Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band

  24. Simmons et al. v. United States390 U.S. 377Mar 18, 1968 · 390 U.S. 377Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  25. Campbell et al. v. United States373 U.S. 487May 27, 1963 · 373 U.S. 487Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  26. Brady v. MarylandLandmark · Other areas373 U.S. 83May 13, 1963 · 373 U.S. 83Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  27. Clancy et al. v. United States365 U.S. 312Feb 27, 1961 · 365 U.S. 312Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  28. Lev v. United States360 U.S. 470Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 470Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
  29. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States360 U.S. 395Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 395Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  30. Rosenberg v. United States360 U.S. 367Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 367Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  31. Palermo v. United States360 U.S. 343Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 343Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  32. Lightfoot v. United States.355 U.S. 2Oct 14, 1957 · 355 U.S. 2Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  33. Scales v. United States.355 U.S. 1Oct 14, 1957 · 355 U.S. 1Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  34. Jencks v. United States353 U.S. 657Jun 3, 1957 · 353 U.S. 657Criminal procedure7–18–1 band

  35. Roviaro v. United States353 U.S. 53Mar 25, 1957 · 353 U.S. 53Criminal procedure6–18–1 band
  36. Gordon et al. v. United States344 U.S. 414Feb 2, 1953 · 344 U.S. 414Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  37. Bowman Dairy Co. et al. v. United States et al.341 U.S. 214Apr 30, 1951 · 341 U.S. 214Criminal procedure7–18–1 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.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.