New York v. Michael Hill
The Court unanimously decided that scheduling of a trial date outside the 180-day period of Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) by a defendant's counsel waived the defendant's right to dismissal on the ground that the trial did not occur within that period.
528 U.S. 110 · No. 98-1299 · 1999 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jan 11, 2000 · argued Nov 2, 1999
Criminal procedure · Subconstitutional fair procedure: timeliness
Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed. New York won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the New York Supreme Court, and its own ruling ends the case.
New York 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.
New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that scheduling of a trial date outside the 180-day period of Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) by a defendant's counsel waived the defendant's right to dismissal on the ground that the trial did not occur within that period. The court clarified that decisions about scheduling are among those entrusted to counsel and do not require a defendant's personal consent. The trial court declared that the defense counsel's agreement to hold the trial after that period waivered Hill's IAD rights.
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 1999 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Antonin ScaliaWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined 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
- New YorkState (New York)
- Respondent
- Michael HillPrisoner, inmate of penal institution
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- Jan 11, 2000DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed. New York won.
- Nov 2, 1999ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the New York Supreme Court: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York 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
9 other argued cases since 1946 on subconstitutional fair procedure: timeliness, newest first.
- Marvin Klehr, et ux. v. A. O. Smith Corporation and A. O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.521 U.S. 179Jun 19, 1997 · 521 U.S. 179Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- North Star Steel Company v. Charles A. Thomas et al.515 U.S. 29May 30, 1995 · 515 U.S. 29Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez511 U.S. 350May 2, 1994 · 511 U.S. 350Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Houston v. Lack, Warden487 U.S. 266Jun 24, 1988 · 487 U.S. 266Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Agency Holding Corp. et al. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.483 U.S. 143Jun 22, 1987 · 483 U.S. 143Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Thomas v. Arn, Superintendent, Ohio Reformatory for Women474 U.S. 140Dec 4, 1985 · 474 U.S. 140Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Moody et al. v. Flowers et al.387 U.S. 97May 22, 1967 · 387 U.S. 97Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Honda et al. v. Clark, Attorney General386 U.S. 484Apr 10, 1967 · 386 U.S. 484Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Smith342 U.S. 225Jan 7, 1952 · 342 U.S. 225Criminal procedure5–45–4 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.
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.