October Term 2000 · Docket 99-6218
Does a state law violate due process if it criminalizes conduct without prior notice?
the side that brought the case argues Tennessee's homicide law lacked fair warning. The state claims the law provided clear notice.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the law failed to provide fair warning.
The state argues the law clearly defined the prohibited conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 5-7
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 5-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.