Perry v. Sindermann
408 U.S. 593 · Decided June 29, 1972 · 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
Perry v. Sindermann was decided on June 29, 1972 by a vote of 5–3. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Potter Stewart wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, hearing for government employees” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 408 U.S. 593 · 92 S. Ct. 2694 · 33 L. Ed. 2d 570 · 1972 U.S. LEXIS 20
- Docket number
- 70-36
- Decided
- June 29, 1972
- Argued
- January 18, 1972
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–3
- Majority opinion
- Potter Stewart
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, hearing for government employees
- 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 O. Douglas | Dissent | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority |
Did not participate: Lewis F. Powell Jr..
Full case caption
Perry et al. v. Sindermann
SCDB identifiers: case 1971-174, docket 1971-174-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, hearing for government employees”
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Christian v. New York State Department of Labor
- Arnett v. Kennedy
- Bishop v. Wood
- Codd v. Velger
- Williams v. Zuckert
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Morrissey v. Brewer
- Moore v. Illinois
- McNeil v. Director
- Fuentes v. ShevinLaw held unconstitutional
- Stanley v. IllinoisLaw held unconstitutional
- Loper v. Beto
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Arciniega v. Freeman, U.S. Marshal
- Younger v. Gilmore
- Jennings v. Mahoney
- Groppi v. Leslie
- Giglio v. United States
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleLaw held unconstitutional
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