California Department of Corrections v. Jose Ramon Morales
514 U.S. 499 · Decided April 25, 1995 · 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
California Department of Corrections v. Jose Ramon Morales was decided on April 25, 1995 by a vote of 7–2. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Ex post facto (state)” in the Criminal Procedure area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 514 U.S. 499 · 115 S. Ct. 1597 · 131 L. Ed. 2d 588 · 1995 U.S. LEXIS 3037
- Docket number
- 93-1462
- Decided
- April 25, 1995
- Argued
- January 9, 1995
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority opinion
- Clarence Thomas
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Ex post facto (state)
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 10 (state bill of attainder or ex post facto law)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Dissent | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority |
Full case caption
California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jose Ramon Morales
SCDB identifiers: case 1994-049, docket 1994-049-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Ex post facto (state)”
- Kenneth Lynce v. Hamilton MathisLaw held unconstitutional
- Collins v. YoungbloodAltered precedent
- J. Wayne Garner v. Robert L. Jones
- Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe
- Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho v. John Doe I
- Miller v. FloridaLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 10 (state bill of attainder or ex post facto law)
- Scott Leslie Carmell v. TexasLaw held unconstitutional
- Mark Seling v. Andre Brigham Young
- Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles
Same Term, same area (Criminal Procedure)
- United States v. Reshat Shabani
- Matthew Wayne Tome v. United States
- United States v. Gary Mezzanatto
- Lloyd Schlup v. Paul K. Delo
- William Duncan v. Robert E. Henry
- Robert O'Neal v. Fred McAninch
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