InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Vitek, Director, Department of Correctional Services, et al. v. Jones et al.

The Court held that state prisoners are entitled to notice, an adversarial hearing, and counsel before their involuntary transfer to state mental hospitals for treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

436 U.S. 407 · No. 77-888 · 1977 term · Burger Court

Decided May 23, 1978 · argued Apr 24, 1978

Judicial power · Mootness

The voteMajorityDissent

8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent

1 dissent (8–1)

Vacated and remanded. Vitek, Director, Department of Correctional Services, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Nebraska U.S. District Court, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.

Vitek, Director, Department of Correctional Services, 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.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state prisoners are entitled to notice, an adversarial hearing, and counsel before their involuntary transfer to state mental hospitals for treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

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.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1977 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensWhiteStewartBlackmunPowellBurgerRehnquist

Majority(8)

Dissent(1)

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.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Vitek, Director, Department of Correctional Services, et al.State (Nebraska)
Respondent
Jones et al.Involuntarily committed mental patient
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.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Decided by
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.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. May 23, 1978DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: vacated and remanded. Vitek, Director, Department of Correctional Services, et al. won.
  2. Apr 24, 1978ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Nebraska 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

61 other argued cases since 1946 on mootness, newest first.

  1. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre601 U.S. 234Mar 19, 2024 · 601 U.S. 234Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  2. Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer601 U.S. 1Dec 5, 2023 · 601 U.S. 1Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  3. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez138 S. Ct. 1532May 14, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1532Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  4. United States v. Microsoft Corp.138 S. Ct. 1186Apr 17, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1186Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  5. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez577 U.S. 153Jan 20, 2016 · 577 U.S. 153Judicial power6–36–3 band
  6. Anita Alvarez, Cook County State's Attorney v. Chermane Smith et al.558 U.S. 87Dec 8, 2009 · 558 U.S. 87Judicial power8–18–1 band

  7. Mario Claiborne v. United States551 U.S. 87Jun 4, 2007 · 551 U.S. 87Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  8. City News and Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha531 U.S. 278Jan 17, 2001 · 531 U.S. 278Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  9. Sylvester Mosley v. United States525 U.S. 120Dec 8, 1998 · 525 U.S. 120Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  10. Randy G. Spencer v. Mike Kemna, Superintendent, Western Missouri Correctional Center, et al.523 U.S. 1Mar 3, 1998 · 523 U.S. 1Judicial power8–18–1 band
  11. Arizonans for Official English and Robert D. Park v. Arizona et al.520 U.S. 43Mar 3, 1997 · 520 U.S. 43Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  12. United States, Federal Communications Commission and Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al.516 U.S. 415Mar 27, 1996 · 516 U.S. 415Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  13. Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, et al.508 U.S. 656Jun 14, 1993 · 508 U.S. 656Judicial power7–27–2 band
  14. Cardinal Chemical Company, etc., et al. v. Morton International, Inc.508 U.S. 83May 17, 1993 · 508 U.S. 83Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  15. United States v. Lowell Green507 U.S. 545Apr 5, 1993 · 507 U.S. 545Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  16. Church of Scientology of California v. United States and Frank S. Zolin506 U.S. 9Nov 16, 1992 · 506 U.S. 9Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  17. Gerald A. Lewis, Comptroller of the State of Florida v. Continental Bank Corporation, et al.494 U.S. 472Mar 5, 1990 · 494 U.S. 472Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  18. Frank, Postmaster General of the United States, et al. v. Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc.490 U.S. 225Apr 25, 1989 · 490 U.S. 225Judicial power6–36–3 band
  19. American Foreign Service Association et al. v. Garfinkel, Director, Information Security Oversight Office, et al.490 U.S. 153Apr 18, 1989 · 490 U.S. 153Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  20. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Kenneth Kizer, Director of California Department of Health Services, et al.485 U.S. 386Mar 23, 1988 · 485 U.S. 386Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  21. Burke, Acting Archivist of the United States, et al. v. Barnes et al.479 U.S. 361Jan 14, 1987 · 479 U.S. 361Judicial power6–27–2 band
  22. United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Galioto477 U.S. 556Jun 26, 1986 · 477 U.S. 556Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  23. United States v. Koecher475 U.S. 133Feb 25, 1986 · 475 U.S. 133Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  24. Lake Coal Co., Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co.474 U.S. 120Dec 3, 1985 · 474 U.S. 120Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  25. Board of License Commissioners of the Town of Tiverton v. Pastore, Liquor Control Administrator of Rhode Island, et al.469 U.S. 238Jan 8, 1985 · 469 U.S. 238Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  26. Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718 v. Boston Chapter, NAACP, et al.461 U.S. 477May 16, 1983 · 461 U.S. 477Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  27. Lane, Corrections Director v. Williams et al.455 U.S. 624Mar 23, 1982 · 455 U.S. 624Judicial power6–36–3 band
  28. Murphy, District Judge, Fourth Judicial District of Nebraska, Douglas County v. Hunt455 U.S. 478Mar 2, 1982 · 455 U.S. 478Judicial power8–18–1 band
  29. University of Texas et al. v. Camenisch451 U.S. 390Apr 29, 1981 · 451 U.S. 390Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  30. Kremens, Hospital Director, et al. v. Bartley et al.431 U.S. 119May 16, 1977 · 431 U.S. 119Judicial power7–27–2 band
  31. Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown, Governor of California, et al.431 U.S. 99May 2, 1977 · 431 U.S. 99Judicial power8–18–1 band
  32. Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board et al.429 U.S. 60Nov 2, 1976 · 429 U.S. 60Judicial power6–36–3 band
  33. Preiser, Commissioner of Correctional Services of New York, et al. v. Newkirk422 U.S. 395Jun 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 395Judicial power8–18–1 band
  34. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Healy et al.421 U.S. 772Jun 9, 1975 · 421 U.S. 772Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  35. United States et al. v. New Jersey State Lottery Commission420 U.S. 371Feb 25, 1975 · 420 U.S. 371Judicial power7–18–1 band
  36. Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis et al. v. Jacobs et al.420 U.S. 128Feb 18, 1975 · 420 U.S. 128Judicial power8–18–1 band
  37. Super Tire Engineering Co. et al. v. McCorkle et al.416 U.S. 115Apr 16, 1974 · 416 U.S. 115Judicial power5–45–4 band
  38. Patterson v. Warner et al.415 U.S. 303Feb 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 303Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  39. Spomer, State's Attorney of Alexander County, Illinois v. Littleton et al.414 U.S. 514Jan 15, 1974 · 414 U.S. 514Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  40. Foley et al. v. Blair & Co., Inc., et al.414 U.S. 212Dec 5, 1973 · 414 U.S. 212Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  41. Indiana Employment Security Division et al. v. Burney409 U.S. 540Jan 17, 1973 · 409 U.S. 540Judicial power7–27–2 band
  42. Johnson et al. v. New York State Education Department et al.409 U.S. 75Nov 20, 1972 · 409 U.S. 75Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  43. Aikens v. California406 U.S. 813Jun 7, 1972 · 406 U.S. 813Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  44. Diffenderfer et al. v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc., et al.404 U.S. 412Jan 10, 1972 · 404 U.S. 412Judicial power6–18–1 band
  45. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Medical Committee for Human Rights404 U.S. 403Jan 10, 1972 · 404 U.S. 403Judicial power6–18–1 band
  46. North Carolina v. Rice404 U.S. 244Dec 14, 1971 · 404 U.S. 244Judicial power6–18–1 band
  47. Sanks et al. v. Georgia et al.401 U.S. 144Feb 23, 1971 · 401 U.S. 144Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  48. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile & Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No. 419, AFL-CIO, et al.397 U.S. 655Apr 27, 1970 · 397 U.S. 655Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  49. Noyd v. Bond et al.395 U.S. 683Jun 16, 1969 · 395 U.S. 683Judicial power7–18–1 band
  50. Powell et al. v. McCormack, Speaker of the House of Representatives, et al.395 U.S. 486Jun 16, 1969 · 395 U.S. 486Judicial power7–18–1 band

  51. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. O'Connell et al.395 U.S. 210May 26, 1969 · 395 U.S. 210Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  52. Publishers' Association of New York City v. New York Mailers' Union Number Six376 U.S. 775Apr 6, 1964 · 376 U.S. 775Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  53. A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.368 U.S. 324Dec 18, 1961 · 368 U.S. 324Judicial power5–45–4 band
  54. Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Missouri361 U.S. 363Jan 25, 1960 · 361 U.S. 363Judicial power6–36–3 band
  55. Black et al. v. Amen et al.355 U.S. 600Mar 3, 1958 · 355 U.S. 600Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  56. Arkansas & Louisiana Missouri Railway Co. et al. v. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc., et al352 U.S. 1028Mar 11, 1957 · 352 U.S. 1028Judicial power6–27–2 band
  57. Harsh v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co.348 U.S. 940Feb 14, 1955 · 348 U.S. 940Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  58. Alton v. Alton347 U.S. 610Jun 1, 1954 · 347 U.S. 610Judicial power6–18–1 band
  59. Gray et al. v. Board of Trustees of the University of Tennessee et al.342 U.S. 517Mar 3, 1952 · 342 U.S. 517Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  60. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 998, et al. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board et al.340 U.S. 416Feb 26, 1951 · 340 U.S. 416Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  61. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Landmark331 U.S. 416May 19, 1947 · 331 U.S. 416Judicial 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.

Report a correction

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.