Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 · Decided December 4, 1985 · 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
Thomas v. Arn was decided on December 4, 1985 by a vote of 6–3. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Subconstitutional fair procedure, timeliness” in the Criminal Procedure area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 474 U.S. 140 · 106 S. Ct. 466 · 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 · 1985 U.S. LEXIS 146
- Docket number
- 84-5630
- Decided
- December 4, 1985
- Argued
- October 7, 1985
- 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
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- Thurgood Marshall
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Subconstitutional fair procedure, timeliness
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal provision
- 28 U.S.C. § 636
- Type of law
- Infrequently litigated statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Dissent | |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority |
Full case caption
Thomas v. Arn, Superintendent, Ohio Reformatory for Women
SCDB identifiers: case 1985-014, docket 1985-014-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Subconstitutional fair procedure, timeliness”
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.
- Houston v. Lack
- United States v. Alejandro Garcia Ibarra
- United States v. Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez
- United States v. Dieter
- North Star Steel Company v. Charles A. Thomas
Cases on the same legal provision: 28 U.S.C. § 636
- Gomez v. United States
- United States v. Raddatz
- John H. McCarthy v. Bronson
- Peretz v. United States
- Mathews v. Weber
- Joseph C. Roell v. Jon Michael Withrow
Same Term, same area (Criminal Procedure)
- Delaware v. Fensterer
- Lanier v. South Carolina
- Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer
- Hill v. Lockhart
- Heath v. Alabama
- Miller v. Fenton
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