Bearden v. Georgia
The Court held that a local government could imprison or jail someone for not paying a fine only if a hearing showed that the person could have paid it but willfully chose not to.· AI-written
461 U.S. 660 · No. 81-6633 · 1982 term · Burger Court
Decided May 24, 1983 · argued Jan 11, 1983
Civil rights · Indigents: payment of fine
Landmark · Other criminal sentences
Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Bearden won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Georgia appellate court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Bearden 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.
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case holding that a local government can only imprison or jail someone for not paying a fine if it can be shown, by means of a hearing, that the person in question could have paid it but "willfully" chose not to do so.
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 1982 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Sandra O'ConnorWrote the majority opinion
Byron WhiteWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
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
- BeardenProbationer, or parolee
- Respondent
- GeorgiaState (Georgia)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- A federal court and a state court had ruled differently
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
- 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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 24, 1983DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Bearden won.
- Jan 11, 1983ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). A federal court and a state court had ruled differently.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Georgia appellate court: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Georgia 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
3 other argued cases since 1946 on indigents: payment of fine, newest first.
- Tate v. Short401 U.S. 395Mar 2, 1971 · 401 U.S. 395Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Morris et al. v. Schoonfield, Warden, et al.399 U.S. 508Jun 29, 1970 · 399 U.S. 508Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Williams v. Illinois399 U.S. 235Jun 29, 1970 · 399 U.S. 235Civil rights8–0Unanimous 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.
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.