Younger v. Gilmore
404 U.S. 15 · Decided November 8, 1971 · 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
Younger v. Gilmore was decided on November 8, 1971 unanimously (7–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The decision was issued per curiam (an unsigned opinion of the Court). SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 404 U.S. 15 · 92 S. Ct. 250 · 30 L. Ed. 2d 142 · 1971 U.S. LEXIS 672
- Docket number
- 70-9
- Decided
- November 8, 1971
- Argued
- October 14, 1971
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Per curiam (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–0 (unanimous)
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2255 (habeas corpus)
- Type of law
- Federal statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority |
Full case caption
Younger, Attorney General of California, et al. v. Gilmore et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1971-005, docket 1971-005-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, prisoners' and defendants' rights”
- Arciniega v. Freeman, U.S. Marshal
- Morrissey v. Brewer
- McGinnis v. Royster
- Hurtado v. United States
- Marshall v. United States
- Wolff v. McDonnell
Cases on the same legal provision: 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2255 (habeas corpus)
- Slayton v. Smith
- Cruz v. Hauck
- Wilwording v. Swenson
- Picard v. Connor
- Boyd v. Dutton
- Schlanger v. Seamans
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Arciniega v. Freeman, U.S. Marshal
- Jennings v. Mahoney
- Groppi v. Leslie
- Giglio v. United States
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleLaw held unconstitutional
- Smith v. Florida
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