Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Lemke v. United States

• 1953 • 346 U.S. 325 • Warren Court
In the 1953 case Lemke v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to bankruptcy fraud. The petitioner, William F. Lemke, was convicted of concealing assets from his trustee during a bankruptcy proceeding and appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had not been properly indicted by a grand jury as required by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He argued that because some members of his grand jury were selected from voter registration lists which excluded certain...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1953
Docket: 109
346 U.S. 325
74 S. Ct. 1
98 L. Ed. 2d 3
1953 U.S. LEXIS 1694

Lemke v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1953 case Lemke v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to bankruptcy fraud. The petitioner, William F. Lemke, was convicted of concealing assets from his trustee during a bankruptcy proceeding and appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had not been properly indicted by a grand jury as required by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He argued that because some members of his grand jury were selected from voter registration lists which excluded certain groups (namely non-taxpayers), it did not represent a fair cross-section of community peers and thus violated his rights under federal law and constitutionally guaranteed due process. The Supreme Court disagreed with Lemke's argument in a unanimous decision affirming his conviction. It held that while there may have been imperfections in how jurors were chosen for service, these did not rise to such level as to invalidate indictments made by those juries or violate constitutional protections against discrimination in juror selection processes.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Lemke v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Lemke's conviction under a statute prohibiting false statements about banks was an overreach of federal authority and violated principles of federalism. He contended that the law in question was intended to protect national banking institutions from fraudulent practices, not to regulate all forms of communication related to banking matters as interpreted by the majority. Furthermore, he emphasized that there were no allegations or evidence suggesting any harm or potential harm caused by Mr.Lemke’s actions towards any federally insured bank which could justify such broad interpretation and application of this law on him. Therefore, according to Justice Douglas' view, it is inappropriate for federal authorities to intervene in what should be considered a local matter unless there are clear implications for interstate commerce or other significant national interests at stake.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Oct 12, 1953
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms