InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Wilbert K. Rogers v. Tennessee

The Court held that there was no due process violation for lack of fair warning when courts broadened pre-existing common law limitations on what acts constitute a crime under a more broadly worded statute to include additional acts.· AI-written

532 U.S. 451 · No. 99-6218 · 2000 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided May 14, 2001 · argued Nov 1, 2000

Due process · Due process: hearing or notice

Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Affirmed. Wilbert K. Rogers lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Wilbert K. Rogers 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.

Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001), was a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that there is no due process violation for lack of fair warning when pre-existing common law limitations on what acts constitute a crime, under a more broadly worded statutory criminal law, are broadened to include additional acts, even when there is no notice to the defendant that the court might undo the common law limitations, so long as the statutory criminal law was made prior to the acts, and so long as the expansion to the newly included acts is expected or defensible in reference to the statutory law. The court wrote,

Read the full article on Wikipedia

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 2000 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgBreyerSouterO'ConnorKennedyRehnquistScaliaThomas

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
Wilbert K. RogersPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
Respondent
TennesseeState (Tennessee)
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 (due process)
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 14, 2001DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Wilbert K. Rogers lost.
  2. Nov 1, 2000ArguedArgued · 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 Tennessee Supreme Court: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Tennessee 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

52 other argued cases since 1946 on due process: hearing or notice, newest first.

  1. Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.Landmark · Personal jurisdiction600 U.S. 122Jun 27, 2023 · 600 U.S. 122Due process5–45–4 band

  2. Sessions v. Dimaya138 S. Ct. 1204Apr 17, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1204Due process5–45–4 band

  3. United States v. Clarke573 U.S. 248Jun 19, 2014 · 573 U.S. 248Due process9–0Unanimous band

  4. Gary Kent Jones v. Linda K. Flowers, et al.547 U.S. 220Apr 26, 2006 · 547 U.S. 220Due process5–36–3 band

  5. Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi As Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.Landmark · Detention of terrorism suspects542 U.S. 507Jun 28, 2004 · 542 U.S. 507Due process8–18–1 band

  6. Larry Dean Dusenbery v. United States534 U.S. 161Jan 8, 2002 · 534 U.S. 161Due process5–45–4 band

  7. Arthur S. Lujan, Labor Commissioner of California, et al. v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.532 U.S. 189Apr 17, 2001 · 532 U.S. 189Due process9–0Unanimous band

  8. Donald E. Nelson v. Adams, USA, Inc., et al.529 U.S. 460Apr 25, 2000 · 529 U.S. 460Due process9–0Unanimous band

  9. City of West Covina v. Lawrence Perkins et al.525 U.S. 234Jan 13, 1999 · 525 U.S. 234Due process9–0Unanimous band
  10. Jason Richards, et al. v. Jefferson County, Alabama, et al.517 U.S. 793Jun 10, 1996 · 517 U.S. 793Due process9–0Unanimous band
  11. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al.510 U.S. 43Dec 13, 1993 · 510 U.S. 43Due process5–45–4 band
  12. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Mallen et al486 U.S. 230May 31, 1988 · 486 U.S. 230Due process9–0Unanimous band
  13. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Joanne Pope, Executrix of the Estate of H. Everett Pope, Jr., Deceased485 U.S. 478Apr 19, 1988 · 485 U.S. 478Due process8–18–1 band
  14. R. 'Roy' Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., dba Heights Hospital, et al.485 U.S. 80Feb 24, 1988 · 485 U.S. 80Due process8–0Unanimous band
  15. Brock, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Roadway Express, Inc.481 U.S. 252Apr 22, 1987 · 481 U.S. 252Due process6–36–3 band
  16. Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing474 U.S. 214Dec 12, 1985 · 474 U.S. 214Due process9–0Unanimous band
  17. Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams462 U.S. 791Jun 22, 1983 · 462 U.S. 791Due process6–36–3 band
  18. Greene et al. v. Lindsey et al.456 U.S. 444May 17, 1982 · 456 U.S. 444Due process6–36–3 band
  19. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. et al.455 U.S. 422Feb 24, 1982 · 455 U.S. 422Due process9–0Unanimous band

  20. O'Bannon, Secretary of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania v. Town Court Nursing Center et al.447 U.S. 773Jun 23, 1980 · 447 U.S. 773Due process7–18–1 band
  21. Barry, Chairman, Racing and Wagering Board of New York, et al. v. Barchi443 U.S. 55Jun 25, 1979 · 443 U.S. 55Due process9–0Unanimous band
  22. Mackey, Registrar of Motor Vehicles of Massachusetts v. Montrym443 U.S. 1Jun 25, 1979 · 443 U.S. 1Due process5–45–4 band
  23. New Motor Vehicle Board of California et al. v. Orrin W. Fox Co. et al.439 U.S. 96Dec 5, 1978 · 439 U.S. 96Due process8–18–1 band
  24. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al. v. Horowitz435 U.S. 78Mar 1, 1978 · 435 U.S. 78Due process6–36–3 band
  25. Smith, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform et al.431 U.S. 816Jun 13, 1977 · 431 U.S. 816Due process9–0Unanimous band
  26. Dixon, Secretary of State of Illinois v. Love431 U.S. 105May 16, 1977 · 431 U.S. 105Due process8–0Unanimous band
  27. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shapiro et ux.424 U.S. 614Mar 8, 1976 · 424 U.S. 614Due process6–27–2 band
  28. Laing v. United States et al.423 U.S. 161Jan 13, 1976 · 423 U.S. 161Due process5–36–3 band
  29. Goss et al. v. Lopez et al.Landmark · Right to counsel419 U.S. 565Jan 22, 1975 · 419 U.S. 565Due process5–45–4 band

  30. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.419 U.S. 345Dec 23, 1974 · 419 U.S. 345Due process6–36–3 band

  31. Dillard et al. v. Industrial Commission of Virginia et al.416 U.S. 783May 15, 1974 · 416 U.S. 783Due process8–18–1 band
  32. Bell v. Burson, Director, Georgia Department of Public Safety402 U.S. 535May 24, 1971 · 402 U.S. 535Due process9–0Unanimous band
  33. Wisconsin v. Constantineau400 U.S. 433Jan 19, 1971 · 400 U.S. 433Due process6–36–3 band
  34. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham393 U.S. 268Jan 13, 1969 · 393 U.S. 268Due process9–0Unanimous band
  35. Pate, Warden v. Robinson383 U.S. 375Mar 7, 1966 · 383 U.S. 375Due process7–27–2 band
  36. Armstrong v. Manzo et ux.380 U.S. 545Apr 27, 1965 · 380 U.S. 545Due process9–0Unanimous band

  37. Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department373 U.S. 96May 13, 1963 · 373 U.S. 96Due process7–27–2 band
  38. Schroeder v. City of New York371 U.S. 208Dec 17, 1962 · 371 U.S. 208Due process9–0Unanimous band
  39. In re Green369 U.S. 689May 21, 1962 · 369 U.S. 689Due process7–0Unanimous band
  40. Oyler v. Boles, Warden368 U.S. 448Feb 19, 1962 · 368 U.S. 448Due process5–45–4 band

  41. Lambert v. California355 U.S. 225Dec 16, 1957 · 355 U.S. 225Due process5–45–4 band

  42. Walker v. City of Hutchinson et al.352 U.S. 112Dec 10, 1956 · 352 U.S. 112Due process6–27–2 band
  43. Shaughnessy, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, v. United States ex rel. MezeiLandmark345 U.S. 206Mar 16, 1953 · 345 U.S. 206Due process5–45–4 band

  44. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding et al.344 U.S. 590Feb 9, 1953 · 344 U.S. 590Due process8–18–1 band

  45. City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.344 U.S. 293Jan 12, 1953 · 344 U.S. 293Due process9–0Unanimous band
  46. Whelchel v. McDONALD, Warden340 U.S. 122Dec 4, 1950 · 340 U.S. 122Due process9–0Unanimous band
  47. Ewing, Federal Security Administrator, et al. v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc.339 U.S. 594May 29, 1950 · 339 U.S. 594Due process6–27–2 band
  48. Mullane, Special Guardian, v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et al.339 U.S. 306Apr 24, 1950 · 339 U.S. 306Due process7–18–1 band
  49. Federal Communications Commission v. WJR, the Goodwill Station, Inc. et al.337 U.S. 265Jun 6, 1949 · 337 U.S. 265Due process8–0Unanimous band
  50. Williams v. New York337 U.S. 241Jun 6, 1949 · 337 U.S. 241Due process7–27–2 band
  51. Taylor v. Alabama335 U.S. 252Jun 21, 1948 · 335 U.S. 252Due process5–36–3 band
  52. Paterno v. Lyons, Commissioner of Correction334 U.S. 314Jun 1, 1948 · 334 U.S. 314Due process8–18–1 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, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.