{"argument_date":"2000-11-08T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2000-11-08T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","paragraphs":["General Moore argued the lower court decision did not deny due process.","General Moore stated the law gave fair warning about stabbing.","Mr. Ward cited prior cases to support the side that brought the case's position.","Mr. Ward referenced Bouie and Marks in his opening statement."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 39-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 5-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 5-7"}]}],"caption":"Rogers v. Tennessee","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.777400Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"the side that brought the case argues Tennessee's homicide law lacked fair warning. The state claims the law provided clear notice.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 39-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-47"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2000-11-08T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-6218.html","primary_docket":"99-6218","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:23:49.151736Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case tests whether a state law violates due process. It asks if a law must give fair warning before criminalizing conduct. The dispute centers on the clarity of Tennessee's homicide statutes."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 39-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-47"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2000."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case wants the Court to find the law violated due process.","The state wants the Court to uphold the lower court's decision."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 39-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-47"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case argues the law failed to provide fair warning.","The state argues the law clearly defined the prohibited conduct."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 39-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-47"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 5-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 5-7"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the scope of fair warning in criminal law. It clarifies how states must draft statutes to protect citizens. It sets standards for legislative clarity in penal codes."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 39-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-47"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 5-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 5-7"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-6218-rogers-v-tennessee","term":"2000","title":"Does a state law violate due process if it criminalizes conduct without prior notice?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 23, lines 39-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-6218.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-47"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}