Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan
The Court held that a Michigan law denying public counsel to defendants appealing a conviction based on a plea violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.· AI-written
545 U.S. 605 · No. 03-10198 · 2004 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 23, 2005 · argued Apr 25, 2005
Civil rights · Indigents: appointment of counsel
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Ruth Ginsburg
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Vacated and remanded. Antonio Dwayne Halbert won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Antonio Dwayne Halbert 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.
Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Michigan law (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 770.3a (West 2000)), which denied public counsel for defendants appealing a conviction on a plea, violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court affirmed that "a State is required to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant's first-tier appeal as of right."
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 2004 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Ruth GinsburgWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Clarence ThomasWrote a dissent
Antonin ScaliaJoined 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
- Antonio Dwayne HalbertIndigent defendant
- Respondent
- MichiganState (Michigan)
- 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
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
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 23, 2005DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: vacated and remanded. Antonio Dwayne Halbert won.
- Apr 25, 2005ArguedArgued · 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 Michigan Supreme Court: petition denied or appeal dismissed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Michigan 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
11 other argued cases since 1946 on indigents: appointment of counsel, newest first.
- Michael Martel, Warden, Petitioner v. Kenneth Clair565 U.S. 648Mar 5, 2012 · 565 U.S. 648Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Cory R. Maples, Petitioner v. Kim T. Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections565 U.S. 266Jan 18, 2012 · 565 U.S. 266Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County554 U.S. 191Jun 23, 2008 · 554 U.S. 191Civil rights8–18–1 band
- George Smith, Warden v. Lee Robbins528 U.S. 259Jan 19, 2000 · 528 U.S. 259Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al. v. Giarratano et al.492 U.S. 1Jun 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 1Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa et al.490 U.S. 296May 1, 1989 · 490 U.S. 296Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Pennsylvania v. Finley481 U.S. 551May 18, 1987 · 481 U.S. 551Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Ross et al. v. Moffitt417 U.S. 600Jun 17, 1974 · 417 U.S. 600Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Entsminger v. Iowa386 U.S. 748May 8, 1967 · 386 U.S. 748Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738May 8, 1967 · 386 U.S. 738Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Douglas et al. v. California372 U.S. 353Mar 18, 1963 · 372 U.S. 353Civil rights6–36–3 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.
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.