Palmore v. United States
The court held that not every judicial proceeding that implicates a charge, claim, or defense based on an Act of Congress or a law made under its authority must be presided over by an Article III judge.
411 U.S. 389 · No. 72-11 · 1972 term · Burger Court
Decided Apr 24, 1973 · argued Feb 21, 1973
Judicial power · Judicial administration: miscellaneous
Majority opinion: Byron White
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Affirmed. Palmore lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District of Columbia Supreme Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Palmore 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.
Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that not every judicial proceeding that implicates a charge, claim, or defense based on an Act of Congress or a law made under its authority must be presided over by an Article III judge.
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 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Byron WhiteWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanJoined the majority
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
William DouglasWrote 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
- PalmorePerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- 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
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17 (governance of the District of Columbia and lands purchased from the states)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national 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.
- Apr 24, 1973DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: affirmed. Palmore lost.
- Feb 21, 1973ArguedArgued · 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 · Decided by the District of Columbia Supreme Court: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District of Columbia 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
8 other argued cases since 1946 on judicial administration: miscellaneous, newest first.
- Bufkin v. Collins145 S. Ct. 728Mar 5, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 728Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Jpmorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (Bvi) Infrastructure Limited536 U.S. 88Jun 10, 2002 · 536 U.S. 88Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.526 U.S. 344Apr 5, 1999 · 526 U.S. 344Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee et al.446 U.S. 458May 19, 1980 · 446 U.S. 458Judicial power8–18–1 band
- United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. R. H. Bouligny, Inc.382 U.S. 145Nov 22, 1965 · 382 U.S. 145Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. American-Foreign Steamship Corp. et al.363 U.S. 685Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 685Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Swanson et al. v. Traer et al.354 U.S. 114Jun 10, 1957 · 354 U.S. 114Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Smith, Special Administrator, v. Sperling et al.354 U.S. 91Jun 10, 1957 · 354 U.S. 91Judicial power5–45–4 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.
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.