InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Martinez, As Next Friend of Morales v. Bynum, Texas Commissioner of Education, et al.

461 U.S. 321 · No. 81-857 · 1982 term · Burger Court

Decided May 2, 1983 · argued Jan 10, 1983

Civil rights · Residency requirements: durational, plus discrimination against nonresidents

Majority opinion: Lewis Powell

The voteMajorityDissent

8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent

1 dissent (8–1)

Affirmed. Martinez, As Next Friend of Morales lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Martinez, As Next Friend of Morales 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.

Report a correction

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.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1982 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensBlackmunWhitePowellBurgerO'ConnorRehnquist

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
Martinez, As Next Friend of MoralesStudent, or applicant for admission to an educational institution
Respondent
Bynum, Texas Commissioner of Education, et al.Specified state board or department of education (Texas)
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.

Report a correction

The law at issue

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

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
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.

Report a correction

Timeline

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

  1. May 2, 1983DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: affirmed. Martinez, As Next Friend of Morales lost.
  2. Jan 10, 1983ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Southern 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

21 other argued cases since 1946 on residency requirements: durational, plus discrimination against nonresidents, newest first.

  1. Rita L. Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Brenda Roe and Anna Doe etc.Landmark · Freedom of movement526 U.S. 489May 17, 1999 · 526 U.S. 489Civil rights7–27–2 band
  2. Barnard, Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners of the Virgin Islands v. Thorstenn et al.489 U.S. 546Mar 6, 1989 · 489 U.S. 546Civil rights6–36–3 band
  3. Supreme Court of Virginia et al. v. Friedman487 U.S. 59Jun 20, 1988 · 487 U.S. 59Civil rights7–27–2 band
  4. Frazier v. Heebe, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, et al.482 U.S. 641Jun 19, 1987 · 482 U.S. 641Civil rights6–36–3 band
  5. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez et al.476 U.S. 898Jun 16, 1986 · 476 U.S. 898Civil rights6–36–3 band
  6. Hooper et al. v. Bernalillo County Assessor472 U.S. 612Jun 24, 1985 · 472 U.S. 612Civil rights5–36–3 band
  7. Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper470 U.S. 274Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 274Civil rights8–18–1 band
  8. United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden et al.465 U.S. 208Feb 21, 1984 · 465 U.S. 208Civil rights8–18–1 band

  9. Zobel et ux. v. Williams, Commissioner of Revenue of Alaska, et al.457 U.S. 55Jun 14, 1982 · 457 U.S. 55Civil rights8–18–1 band

  10. Hicklin et al. v. Orbeck, Commissioner, Department of Labor of Alaska, et al.437 U.S. 518Jun 22, 1978 · 437 U.S. 518Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  11. Baldwin et al. v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana et al.436 U.S. 371May 23, 1978 · 436 U.S. 371Civil rights6–36–3 band
  12. Elkins, President, University of Maryland v. Moreno et al.435 U.S. 647Apr 19, 1978 · 435 U.S. 647Civil rights7–27–2 band
  13. Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport District et al.431 U.S. 159May 16, 1977 · 431 U.S. 159Civil rights8–18–1 band
  14. Sosna v. Iowa et al.419 U.S. 393Jan 14, 1975 · 419 U.S. 393Civil rights6–36–3 band
  15. Memorial Hospital et al. v. Maricopa County et al.415 U.S. 250Feb 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 250Civil rights8–18–1 band
  16. Kusper et al. v. Pontikes414 U.S. 51Nov 19, 1973 · 414 U.S. 51Civil rights7–27–2 band
  17. Rosario et al. v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.410 U.S. 752Mar 21, 1973 · 410 U.S. 752Civil rights5–45–4 band
  18. Carter et al. v. Stanton, Director, Marion County Department of Public Welfare, et al.405 U.S. 669Apr 3, 1972 · 405 U.S. 669Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  19. Dunn, Governor of Tennessee, et al. v. Blumstein405 U.S. 330Mar 21, 1972 · 405 U.S. 330Civil rights6–18–1 band
  20. Hall et ux. v. Beals, Clerk and Recorder of El Paso County, et al.396 U.S. 45Nov 24, 1969 · 396 U.S. 45Civil rights6–27–2 band
  21. Toomer et al. v. Witsell et al.334 U.S. 385Jun 7, 1948 · 334 U.S. 385Civil rights9–0Unanimous 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 and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.