Withrow v. Williams

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Withrow v. Williams

|ArgueDate=November 3

|ArgueYear=1992

|DecideDate=April 21

|DecideYear=1993

|FullName=Pamela Withrow, Petitioner v. Robert Allen Williams, Jr.

|USVol=507

|USPage=680

|ParallelCitations=113 S. Ct. 1745; 123 L. Ed. 2d 407; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2980; 61 U.S.L.W. 4352; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2893; 93 Daily Journal DAR 4974; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 191

|Prior=

|Subsequent=

|Holding=

|Majority=Souter

|JoinMajority=unanimous (part III); White, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy (parts I, II, IV)

|Concurrence/Dissent=O'Connor

|JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Rehnquist

|Concurrence/Dissent2=Scalia

|JoinConcurrence/Dissent2=Thomas

|LawsApplied=

}}

Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Fifth Amendment Miranda v. Arizona arguments can be raised again in federal habeas corpus proceedings, even if a criminal defendant had a fair chance to argue those claims in state court.{{ussc|name=Withrow v. Williams|volume=507|page=680|pin=694-95|year=1993}}. The Court rejected the state's argument that Stone v. Powell, a case holding the opposite in the context of Fourth Amendment claims on habeas review, applied in Williams' case.Withrow, 507 U.S. at 682-83.