InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.

486 U.S. 847 · No. 86-957 · 1987 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 17, 1988 · argued Dec 9, 1987, reargued Apr 25, 1988

Due process · Due process: impartial decision maker

Majority opinion: John Stevens

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Affirmed. Liljeberg 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).

Liljeberg 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 1987 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanBlackmunStevensWhiteKennedyO'ConnorScaliaRehnquist

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

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
LiljebergPhysician, MD or DO, dentist, or medical society
Respondent
Health Services Acquisition Corp.Health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor
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
28 U.S.C. § 455
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Statutory construction
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. Jun 17, 1988DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Liljeberg lost.
  2. Apr 25, 1988RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
  3. Dec 9, 1987ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  4. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  5. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
  6. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Louisiana 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

13 other argued cases since 1946 on due process: impartial decision maker, newest first.

  1. Williams v. Pennsylvania579 U.S. 1Jun 9, 2016 · 579 U.S. 1Due process5–36–3 band

  2. Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., et al.556 U.S. 868Jun 8, 2009 · 556 U.S. 868Due process5–45–4 band

  3. John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky and Roy Lawrence Bourgeois v. United States510 U.S. 540Mar 7, 1994 · 510 U.S. 540Due process9–0Unanimous band
  4. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie et al.475 U.S. 813Apr 22, 1986 · 475 U.S. 813Due process8–0Unanimous band

  5. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McClure et al.456 U.S. 188Apr 20, 1982 · 456 U.S. 188Due process9–0Unanimous band
  6. Smith, Correctional Superintendent v. Phillips455 U.S. 209Jan 25, 1982 · 455 U.S. 209Due process6–36–3 band

  7. United States v. Raddatz447 U.S. 667Jun 23, 1980 · 447 U.S. 667Due process5–45–4 band
  8. Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Jerrico, Inc.446 U.S. 238Apr 28, 1980 · 446 U.S. 238Due process9–0Unanimous band
  9. Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 et al. v. Hortonville Education Assn. et al.426 U.S. 482Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 482Due process6–36–3 band
  10. Withrow et al. v. Larkin421 U.S. 35Apr 16, 1975 · 421 U.S. 35Due process9–0Unanimous band
  11. Taylor v. Hayes, Judge418 U.S. 488Jun 26, 1974 · 418 U.S. 488Due process8–18–1 band
  12. Ward v. Village of Monroeville409 U.S. 57Nov 14, 1972 · 409 U.S. 57Due process7–27–2 band
  13. In re Murchison et al.349 U.S. 133May 16, 1955 · 349 U.S. 133Due process6–36–3 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.

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.