David Dawson v. Delaware
503 U.S. 159 · Decided March 9, 1992 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
David Dawson v. Delaware was decided on March 9, 1992 by a vote of 8–1. The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “First Amendment, miscellaneous” in the First Amendment area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 503 U.S. 159 · 112 S. Ct. 1093 · 117 L. Ed. 2d 309 · 1992 U.S. LEXIS 1536
- Docket number
- 90-6704
- Decided
- March 9, 1992
- Argued
- November 12, 1991
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- William H. Rehnquist
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- First Amendment, miscellaneous
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Legal provision
- First Amendment (association)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
David Dawson v. Delaware
SCDB identifiers: case 1991-041, docket 1991-041-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “First Amendment, miscellaneous”
- Charles W. Burson v. Mary Rebecca Freeman
- Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims BoardLaw held unconstitutional
- Forsyth County v. the Nationalist MovementLaw held unconstitutional
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Walter Lee
- Walter Lee v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Dominic P. Gentile v. State Bar of NevadaLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: First Amendment (association)
- Barbara J. Norman v. Dorothy ReedLaw held unconstitutional
- Alan B. Burdick v. Morris Takushi
- Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte
- Michele L. Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party
- Tashjian v. Republican Party of ConnecticutLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (First Amendment)
- Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims BoardLaw held unconstitutional
- Charles W. Burson v. Mary Rebecca Freeman
- Forsyth County v. the Nationalist MovementLaw held unconstitutional
- Rav v. City of St. PaulLaw held unconstitutional
- Robert E. Lee v. Daniel Weisman Etc.Law held unconstitutional
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Walter Lee
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error