Rizzo, Mayor of Philadelphia, et al. v. Goode et al.
The Court held that a prophylactic injunction against non-culpable state executive officials was an overbroad interference by the Federal Courts in the state executive branches.
423 U.S. 362 · No. 74-942 · 1975 term · Burger Court
Decided Jan 21, 1976 · argued Nov 11, 1975
Judicial power · Comity: civil rights
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed. Rizzo, Mayor of Philadelphia, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Rizzo, Mayor of Philadelphia, 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.
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a prophylactic injunction against non-culpable state executive officials was an overbroad interference by the Federal Courts in the state executive branches. In doing so, the court created a limit on the federal injunctive power in matters of state agency internal affairs.
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 1975 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Harry BlackmunWrote a dissent
William BrennanJoined a dissent
Thurgood MarshallJoined a dissent
Did not take part: John Stevens.
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
- Rizzo, Mayor of Philadelphia, et al.Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Pennsylvania)
- Respondent
- Goode et al.Racial or ethnic minority
- 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
- Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- 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.
- Jan 21, 1976DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed. Rizzo, Mayor of Philadelphia, et al. won.
- Nov 11, 1975ArguedArgued · 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 U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Pennsylvania Eastern 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
12 other argued cases since 1946 on comity: civil rights, newest first.
- Correction Officer Porter, et al. v. Ronald Nussle534 U.S. 516Feb 26, 2002 · 534 U.S. 516Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- National Private Truck Council, Inc., et al. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission et al.515 U.S. 582Jun 19, 1995 · 515 U.S. 582Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Joan Growe, Secretary of State of Minnesota, et al. v. James Emison, et al.507 U.S. 25Feb 23, 1993 · 507 U.S. 25Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- James A. Ford v. Georgia498 U.S. 411Feb 19, 1991 · 498 U.S. 411Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida457 U.S. 496Jun 21, 1982 · 457 U.S. 496Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Juidice et al., Judges v. Vail et al.430 U.S. 327Mar 22, 1977 · 430 U.S. 327Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Johnson et al. v. Mississippi et al.421 U.S. 213May 12, 1975 · 421 U.S. 213Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Harris County Commissioners Court et al. v. Moore et al.420 U.S. 77Feb 18, 1975 · 420 U.S. 77Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Glover et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. et al.393 U.S. 324Jan 14, 1969 · 393 U.S. 324Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock et al.384 U.S. 808Jun 20, 1966 · 384 U.S. 808Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Georgia v. Rachel et al.384 U.S. 780Jun 20, 1966 · 384 U.S. 780Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Harrison, Attorney General of Virginia, et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al.360 U.S. 167Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 167Judicial power6–36–3 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.