Ham v. South Carolina
The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment.
409 U.S. 524 · No. 71-5139 · 1972 term · Burger Court
Decided Jan 17, 1973 · argued Nov 6, 1972
Criminal procedure · Extra-legal jury influences: voir dire
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Reversed. Ham won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and its own ruling ends the case.
Ham 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.
Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.
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 1972 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
Thurgood MarshallWrote 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
- HamPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
- Respondent
- South CarolinaState (South Carolina)
- 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
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- 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.
- Jan 17, 1973DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed. Ham won.
- Nov 6, 1972ArguedArgued · 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 South Carolina Supreme Court: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the South Carolina 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
9 other argued cases since 1946 on extra-legal jury influences: voir dire, newest first.
- Pitchford v. Cain146 S. Ct. 1345May 28, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1345Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Warger v. Shauers574 U.S. 40Dec 9, 2014 · 574 U.S. 40Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Mary Berghuis, Warden v. Diapolis Smith559 U.S. 314Mar 30, 2010 · 559 U.S. 314Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Michael Rivera v. Illinois556 U.S. 148Mar 31, 2009 · 556 U.S. 148Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Dawud Majid Mu'min v. Virginia500 U.S. 415May 30, 1991 · 500 U.S. 415Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Holland v. Illinois493 U.S. 474Jan 22, 1990 · 493 U.S. 474Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Turner v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections476 U.S. 28Apr 30, 1986 · 476 U.S. 28Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Rosales-Lopez v. United States451 U.S. 182Apr 21, 1981 · 451 U.S. 182Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Ristaino et al. v. Ross424 U.S. 589Mar 3, 1976 · 424 U.S. 589Criminal procedure6–27–2 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.