Mark Seling v. Andre Brigham Young
531 U.S. 250 · Decided January 17, 2001 · 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
Mark Seling v. Andre Brigham Young was decided on January 17, 2001 by a vote of 8–1. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, miscellaneous” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 531 U.S. 250 · 121 S. Ct. 727 · 148 L. Ed. 2d 734 · 2001 U.S. LEXIS 790
- Docket number
- 99-1185
- Decided
- January 17, 2001
- Argued
- October 31, 2000
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, miscellaneous
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 10 (state bill of attainder or ex post facto law)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Concurrence | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority |
Full case caption
Mark Seling, Superintendent, Special Commitment Center v. Andre Brigham Young
SCDB identifiers: case 2000-015, docket 2000-015-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, miscellaneous”
- William Fiore v. Gregory White
- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
- Kansas v. Michael T. Crane
- City of Chicago v. Jesus MoralesLaw held unconstitutional
- American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company v. Delores Scott Sullivan
- Clyde Timothy Bunkley v. Florida
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 10 (state bill of attainder or ex post facto law)
- Scott Leslie Carmell v. TexasLaw held unconstitutional
- J. Wayne Garner v. Robert L. Jones
- Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho v. John Doe I
- Marion Reynolds Stogner v. CaliforniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Kenneth Lynce v. Hamilton MathisLaw held unconstitutional
- California Department of Corrections v. Jose Ramon Morales
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- William Fiore v. Gregory White
- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
- Arthur S. Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
- Wilbert K. Rogers v. Tennessee
- Anthony Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
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