Hewitt v. Helms
459 U.S. 460 · Decided February 22, 1983 · 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
Hewitt v. Helms was decided on February 22, 1983 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 459 U.S. 460 · 103 S. Ct. 864 · 74 L. Ed. 2d 675 · 1983 U.S. LEXIS 3
- Docket number
- 81-638
- Decided
- February 22, 1983
- Argued
- November 8, 1982
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- William H. Rehnquist
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Dissent | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority |
Full case caption
Hewitt et al. v. Helms
SCDB identifiers: case 1982-025, docket 1982-025-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights”
- Olim v. Wakinekona
- City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital
- Jago v. Van Curen
- Block v. Rutherford
- Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat
- Howe v. Smith
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Marshall v. Lonberger
- Connecticut v. Johnson
- Kolender v. LawsonLaw held unconstitutional
- City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City v. AshcroftLaw held unconstitutional
- Simopoulos v. Virginia
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Landon v. Plasencia
- Olim v. Wakinekona
- Kolender v. LawsonLaw held unconstitutional
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsLaw held unconstitutional
- City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital
- Jones v. United States
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