Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
375 U.S. 384 · Decided January 6, 1964 · 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
Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service was decided on January 6, 1964 by a vote of 5–4. The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. The decision was issued per curiam (an unsigned 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
- 375 U.S. 384 · 84 S. Ct. 397 · 11 L. Ed. 2d 404 · 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2033
- Docket number
- 496
- Decided
- January 6, 1964
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Per curiam (no oral argument)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Opinion assigned by
- Earl Warren
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Subconstitutional fair procedure, timeliness
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal provision
- Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure
- Type of law
- Court rules
- 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 | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Majority | |
| Justice John M. Harlan II | Dissent | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Dissent | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Dissent | |
| Justice Arthur J. Goldberg | Majority |
Full case caption
Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
SCDB identifiers: case 1963-041, docket 1963-041-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Subconstitutional fair procedure, timeliness”
- Honda v. Clark
- Moody v. Flowers
- United States v. Smith
- United States v. Dieter
- Thomas v. Arn
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.
Cases on the same legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure
- National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent
- United States v. Merz
- Wolfsohn v. Hankin
- Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana
- Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co.
Same Term, same area (Criminal Procedure)
- Newsome v. North Carolina
- Pickelsimer v. Wainwright
- Barnes v. North Carolina
- Panico v. United States
- Evola v. United States
- Crews v. Wainwright
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