Samuels et al. v. Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al.
401 U.S. 66 · No. 7 · 1970 term · Burger Court
Decided Feb 23, 1971 · argued Apr 1, 1969, reargued Apr 29, 1969
Judicial power · Comity: First Amendment
Majority opinion: Hugo Black
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Samuels et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the New York Southern U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Samuels et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give 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.
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1970 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Hugo BlackWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasWrote a concurrence
William BrennanWrote a concurrence
Potter StewartWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
John HarlanJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Samuels et al.Protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer
- Respondent
- Mackell, District Attorney of Queens County, et al.State (New York)
- 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
- Abstention Doctrine
- Kind of law
- Other
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
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.
- Feb 23, 1971DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Samuels et al. lost.
- Apr 29, 1969RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Apr 1, 1969ArguedArgued · 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 · Began in and was decided by the New York Southern 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
10 other argued cases since 1946 on comity: First Amendment, newest first.
- Ohio Civil Rights Commission et al. v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., et al.477 U.S. 619Jun 27, 1986 · 477 U.S. 619Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association et al.457 U.S. 423Jun 21, 1982 · 457 U.S. 423Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Babbitt, Governor of Arizona, et al. v. United Farm Workers National Union et al.442 U.S. 289Jun 5, 1979 · 442 U.S. 289Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Allee et al. v. Medrano et al.416 U.S. 802May 20, 1974 · 416 U.S. 802Judicial power5–36–3 band
- Boyle, Judge, et al. v. Landry et al.401 U.S. 77Feb 23, 1971 · 401 U.S. 77Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County v. Harris et al.401 U.S. 37Feb 23, 1971 · 401 U.S. 37Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Zwickler v. Koota, District Attorney of Kings County389 U.S. 241Dec 5, 1967 · 389 U.S. 241Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Government and Civic Employees Organizing Committee, CIO, et al. v. Windsor et al.353 U.S. 364May 13, 1957 · 353 U.S. 364Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Albertson et al. v. Millard, Attorney General of Michigan, et al.345 U.S. 242Mar 16, 1953 · 345 U.S. 242Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Parker et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al.338 U.S. 327Dec 5, 1949 · 338 U.S. 327Judicial power8–0Unanimous 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.
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.