Roman v. Sincock
377 U.S. 695 · Decided June 15, 1964 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Roman v. Sincock was decided on June 15, 1964 by a vote of 8–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Reapportionment (other than Voting Rights Act plans)” in the Civil Rights area. SCDB records that the Court declared a state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision unconstitutional.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 377 U.S. 695 · 84 S. Ct. 1449 · 12 L. Ed. 2d 620 · 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1006
- Docket number
- 307
- Decided
- June 15, 1964
- Argued
- December 9, 1963
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- Earl Warren
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Legal provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Held unconstitutional
- A state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Tom C. Clark | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Arthur J. Goldberg | Majority |
Full case caption
Roman, Clerk of the Peace, et al. v. Sincock et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1963-144, docket 1963-144-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Reapportionment (other than Voting Rights Act plans)”
- Reynolds v. SimsLaw held unconstitutional
- Wmca, Inc. v. LomenzoLaw held unconstitutional
- Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. TawesLaw held unconstitutional
- Davis v. MannLaw held unconstitutional
- Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of ColoradoLaw held unconstitutional
- Meyers v. ThigpenLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborAltered precedent
- Griffin v. Maryland
- Robinson v. Florida
- Coleman v. Alabama
- Arnold v. North Carolina
- Anderson v. MartinLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Civil Rights)
- Shockey v. Illinois
- Ausbie v. California
- Daegele v. Kansas
- Herrear v. Heinze
- Tabb v. California
- Foti v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
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