United States v. Raddatz
447 U.S. 667 · Decided June 23, 1980 · 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
United States v. Raddatz was decided on June 23, 1980 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, impartial decision maker” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 447 U.S. 667 · 100 S. Ct. 2406 · 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 · 1980 U.S. LEXIS 49
- Docket number
- 79-8
- Decided
- June 23, 1980
- Argued
- February 25, 1980
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Warren E. Burger
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, impartial decision maker
- Issue area
- Due Process
- 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 | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority |
Full case caption
United States v. Raddatz
SCDB identifiers: case 1979-131, docket 1979-131-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, impartial decision maker”
- Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.
- Smith v. Phillips
- Schweiker v. McClure
- Connally v. GeorgiaLaw held unconstitutional
- Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Assn.
- Withrow v. Larkin
Cases on the same legal provision: 28 U.S.C. § 636
- Mathews v. Weber
- Thomas v. Arn
- Gomez v. United States
- John H. McCarthy v. Bronson
- Peretz v. United States
- Joseph C. Roell v. Jon Michael Withrow
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Andrus v. Allard
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States
- Vaughn v. Vermilion Corp.
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
- Rush v. Savchuk
- Vitek v. JonesLaw 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