Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Ziya K. Koray
515 U.S. 50 · No. 94-790 · 1994 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 5, 1995 · argued Apr 24, 1995
Criminal procedure · Subconstitutional fair procedure: miscellaneous
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Reversed and remanded. Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Janet Reno, Attorney General, 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.
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1994 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgWrote a concurrence
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
John StevensWrote a dissent
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
- Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al.Attorney general of the United States, or his office
- Respondent
- Ziya K. KorayDefendant
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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
- 18 U.S.C. § 3585
- 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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 5, 1995DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: reversed and remanded. Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. won.
- Apr 24, 1995ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Pennsylvania Middle 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
17 other argued cases since 1946 on subconstitutional fair procedure: miscellaneous, newest first.
- Abouammo v. United States146 S. Ct. 1571Jun 11, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1571Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Homero Gonzalez v. United States553 U.S. 242May 12, 2008 · 553 U.S. 242Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Dale G. Becker v. Betty Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, et al.532 U.S. 757May 29, 2001 · 532 U.S. 757Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain504 U.S. 655Jun 15, 1992 · 504 U.S. 655Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. Richard Wilson503 U.S. 329Mar 24, 1992 · 503 U.S. 329Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Peretz v. United States501 U.S. 923Jun 27, 1991 · 501 U.S. 923Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Darlina K. France498 U.S. 335Jan 22, 1991 · 498 U.S. 335Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- Richard Demarest v. James, Manspeaker et al.498 U.S. 184Jan 8, 1991 · 498 U.S. 184Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Gomez v. United States490 U.S. 858Jun 12, 1989 · 490 U.S. 858Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States487 U.S. 250Jun 22, 1988 · 487 U.S. 250Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Ray v. United States481 U.S. 736May 18, 1987 · 481 U.S. 736Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Powell469 U.S. 57Dec 10, 1984 · 469 U.S. 57Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Sampson, Administrator, General Services Administration, et al. v. Murray415 U.S. 61Feb 19, 1974 · 415 U.S. 61Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Saldana v. United States365 U.S. 646Apr 3, 1961 · 365 U.S. 646Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Greene v. United States358 U.S. 326Jan 26, 1959 · 358 U.S. 326Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Massei355 U.S. 595Mar 3, 1958 · 355 U.S. 595Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Fleming, Temporary Controls Administrator, v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co. et al.331 U.S. 111Apr 28, 1947 · 331 U.S. 111Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous 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 and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.