Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. v. Kennedy et al.
416 U.S. 134 · No. 72-1118 · 1973 term · Burger Court
Decided Apr 16, 1974 · argued Nov 7, 1973
Due process · Due process: hearing, government employees
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Illinois Northern U.S. District Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, 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.
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 1973 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
Lewis PowellWrote a concurrence
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
Thurgood MarshallWrote a dissent
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
William BrennanJoined 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
- Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al.United States
- Respondent
- Kennedy et al.Governmental employee or job applicant (United 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
- Fifth Amendment (due process)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- 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 16, 1974DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. won.
- Nov 7, 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 · Began in and was decided by the Illinois Northern U.S. District Court: stay, petition, or motion granted.
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 due process: hearing, government employees, newest first.
- Janice R. Lachance, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Lester E. Erickson, Jr., et al.522 U.S. 262Jan 21, 1998 · 522 U.S. 262Due process9–0Unanimous band
- James E. Gilbert, President, East Stroudsburg University, et al. v. Richard Homar520 U.S. 924Jun 9, 1997 · 520 U.S. 924Due process9–0Unanimous band
- National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jerry Tarkanian488 U.S. 179Dec 12, 1988 · 488 U.S. 179Due process5–45–4 band
- Cornelius, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Nutt et al.472 U.S. 648Jun 24, 1985 · 472 U.S. 648Due process6–27–2 band
- Codd, Police Commissioner, City of New York, et al. v. Velger429 U.S. 624Feb 22, 1977 · 429 U.S. 624Due process5–45–4 band
- Bishop v. Wood et al.426 U.S. 341Jun 10, 1976 · 426 U.S. 341Due process5–45–4 band
- Christian et al. v. New York State Department of Labor, Division of Employment, et al.414 U.S. 614Jan 21, 1974 · 414 U.S. 614Due process9–0Unanimous band
- Perry et al. v. Sindermann408 U.S. 593Jun 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 593Due process5–36–3 band
- Board of Regents of State Colleges et al. v. Roth408 U.S. 564Jun 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 564Due process5–36–3 band
- Williams v. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force, et al.371 U.S. 531Jan 14, 1963 · 371 U.S. 531Due process7–27–2 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 and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.