baker v carr homework help

Baker v. Carr

Baker v. carr case brief.

PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series ™ :

Choose Your Subscription:

Purchase By Course

• INCLUDED Civil Procedure
• INCLUDED Constitutional Law
• INCLUDED Contracts Law
• INCLUDED Criminal Law
• INCLUDED Property Law
• INCLUDED Torts Law
• $67 Civil Procedure ( Learn More )
• $87 Constitutional Law ( Learn More )
• $67 Contract Law ( Learn More )
• $67 Criminal Law ( Learn More )
• $67 Property Law ( Learn More )
• $67 Torts Law ( Learn More )

Have an Account? Login! OR Register and Purchase Now!

Register and Subscribe Now

Please wait verifying...

• Forgot your password?

Add to Library

Baker v. Carr

Instructor Matthew Steinberg

CaseCast ™ –   "What you need to know"

Brief Fact Summary.

Synopsis of rule of law., discussion..

Create New Group

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

You are using an outdated browser no longer supported by Oyez. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)

Drawing lines around state electoral districts can be reviewed by courts because the political question doctrine does not apply.

In the late 1950s, the state of Tennessee was still using boundaries between electoral districts that had been devised in 1901, according to the 1900 census. However, the state constitution required revising the lines every 10 years to account for changes in population. Since 1901, population changes had resulted in vast disparities between the Shelby County district in which Memphis was located and other surrounding districts. This meant that the votes of people in rural areas had a proportionately greater value than the votes of people in urban areas. A Republican voter who lived in an urban area of Shelby County, Charles Baker, brought a claim to argue that he was denied equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment because his vote was devalued. The named defendant was Joseph Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, who oversaw the election process in the state but did not construct the boundaries. Citing the political question doctrine, Tennessee argued that courts could not provide a remedy for this issue. Instead, they should allow the political process to function independently.

• William Joseph Brennan, Jr. (Author)
• Hugo Lafayette Black
• Earl Warren

Offering a clearer vision of the political question doctrine, Brennan streamlined it into six factors that must be present for a court to withhold its opinion on an issue: 1) A textual constitutional commitment of the matter to another branch of government, such as the power of the President in foreign affairs (note that later cases did not strictly adhere to this view); 2) A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue; 3) A need for an initial policy determination before addressing the matter that courts would not be able to reach; 4) A situation in which independent court action would violate the separation of powers framework; 5) An unusual need to strictly adhere to a previous political decision; or 6) A possibility that clashing statements on an issue by multiple branches of government would cause embarrassment. Brennan found that these factors were not present in the current case, so he ruled that it was justiciable rather than a political question. Since there was no majority but only a plurality, however, the Court could not grant relief to Baker outright. Instead, it remanded the case to the lower courts for further consideration.

Concurrence

• William Orville Douglas (Author)
• Tom C. Clark (Author)
• Potter Stewart (Author)
• Felix Frankfurter (Author)
• John Marshall Harlan II

Taking a more cautious view of the separation of powers, Frankfurter lamented that the Court had stepped beyond the appropriate boundaries of the judicial role. He would have allowed the political process to determine the relative impact of an individual's vote.

• Charles Evans Whittaker (Author)

Health issues caused by the heated debate over the case forced Whittaker to withdraw from the deliberations and arguably into early retirement.

Although cases brought under the Guaranty Clause historically are usually considered to be nonjusticiable, courts have tried to find alternate grounds for these claims that allow them to be considered. This trend shows that the scope of the political question doctrine is shrinking, although this may be tempered by increasingly strict limits on standing. The sequel to this case would come in 1964 with Reynolds v. Sims, when the Court articulated the principle of "one person, one vote" that would require many states to redraw the lines of their electoral districts and amend their constitutions. This applies to all states with bicameral legislatures. As a result, the process of creating districts has become extremely complex. In ensuring that each person's vote has approximately the same power, counties and districts often overlap. Urban areas also received more power at the expense of rural areas.

U.S. Supreme Court

Baker v. Carr

Argued April 19-20, 1961

Set for reargument May 1, 1961

Reargued October 9, 1961

Decided March 26, 1962

369 U.S. 186

Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them subsequently notwithstanding substantial growth and redistribution of the State's population, they suffer a "debasement of their votes," and were thereby denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the 1901 statute is unconstitutional and an injunction restraining certain state officers from conducting any further elections under it. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that no claim was stated upon which relief could be granted.

1. The District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the federal constitutional claim asserted in the complaint. Pp. 369 U. S. 198 -204.

2. Appellants had standing to maintain this suit. Pp. 369 U. S. 204 -208.

3. The complaint's allegations of a denial of equal protection presented a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision. Pp. 369 U. S. 208 -37.

179 F. Supp. 824 , reversed and cause remanded

Page 369 U. S. 187

• Opinions & Dissents

• Oral Arguments

• Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Baker v. Carr: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

Judging Reapportionment

 Belterz / Getty Images

• U.S. Legal System
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government

• B.A., Politics, Brandeis University

Baker v. Carr (1962) was a landmark case concerning re-apportionment and redistricting . The United States Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could hear and rule on cases in which plaintiffs allege that re-apportionment plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .

Fast Facts: Baker v. Carr

• Case Argued:  April 19-20, 1961; re-argued October 9, 1961
• Decision Issued:  March 26, 1962
• Petitioner:  Charles W. Baker on behalf of multiple Tennessee voters
• Respondent:  Joe Carr, Secretary of State for Tennessee
• Key Questions:  Can federal courts hear and rule on cases related to state apportionment?
• Majority: Justices Brennan, Stewart, Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark
• Dissenting: Justices Frankfurter and Harlan
• Ruling: Plaintiffs may argue that redistricting has violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause in federal court.

Facts of the Case

In 1901, the Tennessee General Assembly passed an apportionment act. The statute required Tennessee to update its apportionment of senators and representatives every ten years, based on population recorded by the federal census. The statute offered a way for Tennessee to handle apportionment of senators and representatives as its population shifted and grew.

Between 1901 and 1960, the population of Tennessee grew significantly. In 1901, Tennessee's population totaled just 2,020,616 and only 487,380 residents were eligible to vote. In 1960, the federal census revealed that the state's population had grown by more than a million, totaling 3,567,089, and its voting population had swelled to 2,092,891.

Despite population growth, the Tennessee General Assembly failed to enact a re-apportionment plan. Each time redistricting plans were drawn up in accordance with the federal census and put to a vote, they failed to get enough votes to pass.

In 1961, Charles W. Baker and a number of Tennessee voters sued the state of Tennessee for failing to update the apportionment plan to reflect the state's growth in population. The failure gave significant power to voters in rural areas, and took away power from voters in suburban and urban parts of the state. Baker's vote counted for less than the vote of someone living in a rural area, he alleged, a violation the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Tennessee had acted "arbitrarily" and "capriciously" in not following redistricting standards, he claimed.

A district court panel declined to hear the case, finding that it could not rule on "political" matters like redistricting and apportionment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Constitutional Questions

Can the Supreme Court rule on a case regarding apportionment? The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause says that a state cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Did Tennessee deny Baker equal protection when it failed to update its apportionment plan?

Baker argued that re-apportionment was vital to the equality in the democratic process. Tennessee had undergone a population shift in which thousands of people flooded urban areas, abandoning the rural countryside. Despite a swell in population, certain urban areas were still receiving the same amount of representatives as rural areas with far less voters. Baker, like many other residents in urban areas of Tennessee, found himself in a situation where his vote counted for less due to a lack of representation, his attorneys argued. The only remedy to his lack of representation would be a federal court order to require re-apportionment, the attorneys told the Court.

Attorneys on behalf of the state argued that the Supreme Court lacked grounds and jurisdiction to even hear the case. In a 1946 case, Colegrove v. Green, the Supreme Court had ruled that apportionment should be left to the states to decide, the attorneys argued. In that case, the Court had declared re-apportionment a "political thicket." How to redraw districts was a "political" question rather than a judicial one, and should be up to state governments, the attorneys explained.

Majority Opinion

Justice William Brennan delivered the 6-2 decision. Justice Whittaker recused himself.

Justice Brennan focused the decision on whether redistricting could be a "justiciable" question, meaning whether federal courts could hear a case regarding apportionment of state representatives.

Justice Brennan wrote that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in relation to apportionment. This means that federal courts have the authority to hear apportionment cases when plaintiffs allege deprivation of fundamental liberties. Next, Justice Brennan found that Baker and his fellow plaintiffs had standing to sue because, the voters were alleging "facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals."

Justice Brennan drew a line between "political questions" and "justiciable questions" by defining the former. He developed a six prong test to guide the Court in future decisions regarding whether or not a question is "political." A question is "political" if:

• the Constitution has already given decision making power to a specific political department.
• there is no apparent judicial remedy or set of judicial standards for resolving the issue
• a decision cannot be made without first making a policy determination that is not judicial in nature
• the Court cannot undertake an "independent resolution" without "expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government"
• there is an unusual need for not questioning a political decision that has already been made
• "the potentiality of embarrassment" from multiple decisions being issued by various departments regarding one question

Following these six prongs, Justice Warren concluded that alleged voting inequalities could not be characterized as "political questions" simply because they asserted wrongdoing in the political process. Federal courts could create “discoverable and manageable standards” for granting relief in equal protection cases.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Felix Frankfurter dissented, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan. The Court's decision represented a clear deviation from a long history of judicial restraint, he argued. The decision allowed the Supreme Court and other federal district courts to enter the political realm, violating the intent of separation of powers , Justice Frankfurter wrote.

Justice Frankfurter added:

The notion that representation proportioned to the geographic spread of population is so universally accepted as a necessary element of equality between man and man that it must be taken to be the standard of a political equality preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment... is, to put it bluntly, not true.

Chief Justice Earl Warren called Baker v. Carr the most important case of his tenure on the Supreme Court. It opened the door to numerous historic cases in which the Supreme Court tackled questions of voting equality and representation in government. Within seven weeks of the decision, lawsuits had been filed in 22 states asking for relief in terms of unequal apportionment standards. It took only two years for 26 states to ratify new apportionment plans with respect to population counts. Some of those new plans were guided by federal court decisions.

• Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
• Atleson, James B. “The Aftermath of Baker v. Carr. An Adventure in Judicial Experimentation.”  California Law Review , vol. 51, no. 3, 1963, p. 535., doi:10.2307/3478969.
• “Baker v. Carr (1962).”  The Rose Institute of State and Local Government , http://roseinstitute.org/redistricting/baker/.
• Reynolds v. Sims: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Dickerson v. United States: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Browder v. Gayle: Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Griggs v. Duke Power: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Bolling v. Sharpe: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Brown v. Mississippi: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Schmerber v. California: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Wong Sun v. United States: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• What Is a Majority Opinion: A Definition and Overview
• McKeiver v. Pennsylvania: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Buckley v. Valeo: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• U.S. v. O'Brien: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Brewer v. Williams: Can You Unintentionally Waive Your Right to an Attorney?
• Lawrence v. Texas: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Padilla v. Kentucky: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Washington v. Davis: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Primary tabs.

Baker v. Carr (1962) is the U.S. Supreme Court case that held that federal courts could hear cases alleging that a state’s drawing of electoral boundaries, i.e. redistricting, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In so ruling, the Court also reformulated the political question doctrine . Find the full text of the case here . 

In the case, the plaintiff lived in an urban Tennessee voting district which was relatively underrepresented compared to rural voting districts. Tennessee law required districts to be redrawn every ten years, but Tennessee had not done so in decades. The plaintiff sued in federal district court, claiming that the law required Tennessee to redraw their districts to make each district’s representation substantially equal to its population. The lower court held it was a political question and therefore non-justiciable , dismissing plaintiff’s case. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and held that the constitutionality of a legislative appointment scheme was not a political question and therefore was justiciable; i.e., a federal court could hear the case and decide on the merits. 

In finding this case justiciable, the Court created the political question doctrine, which creates a series of factors, at least one of which must be present, in order for the case to be a non-justiciable political question. Under the doctrine, if any of the following are met, then the court may not hear the case: (a) commitment of the issue to a branch of government other than the judiciary ; (b) lack of standards for resolving the issue; (c) impossibility of the judiciary to resolve the issue without first making a policy determination; (d) a judicial decision of that matter as a lack of respect for other branches of government; (e) a political decision has already been made; or (f) the potential for multiple pronouncements by various branches on one question.

Further, by holding that such cases were justiciable, the Supreme Court paved the way for federal courts to hear and decide on claims that electoral districts violated the equal protection clause. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on Baker to require that the United States House of Representatives and state legislatures establish electoral districts of equal population in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims . Future cases also invoked Baker’s formulation of the political question doctrine, such as Nixon v. United States . 

[Last updated in December of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

Full text of Baker v. Carr (1962)

• ACADEMIC TOPICS
• legal history
• THE LEGAL PROCESS
• legal theory
• constitutional law
• courts and procedure
• wex articles
• wex definitions
• lawsuits-court

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Baker v. Carr

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Oyez - Baker v. Carr
• Cornell University Law School - Baker v. Carr

Baker v. Carr , (1962), U.S. Supreme Court case that forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population. Traditionally, particularly in the South, the populations of rural areas had been overrepresented in legislatures in proportion to those of urban and suburban areas. Prior to the Baker case, the Supreme Court had refused to intervene in apportionment cases; in 1946 in Colegrove v. Green the court said apportionment was a “political thicket” into which the judiciary should not intrude. In the Baker case, however, the court held that each vote should carry equal weight regardless of the voter’s place of residence. Thus the legislature of Tennessee had violated the constitutionally guaranteed right of equal protection ( q.v. ). Chief Justice Earl Warren described this decision as the most important case decided after his appointment to the court in 1953.

Citing the Baker case as a precedent, the court held in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that both houses of bicameral legislatures had to be apportioned according to population. It remanded numerous other apportionment cases to lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Baker and Reynolds decisions. As a result, virtually every state legislature was reapportioned, ultimately causing the political power in most state legislatures to shift from rural to urban areas.

Supreme Court Document-Based Questions

How can you help you

Want to create your own playlists, save resources to your library, and access answer keys? Sign up for an educator account!

Baker v. Carr | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights

In this Homework Help video, learn the story of the landmark Supreme Court case of Baker v. Carr. The case explores the question of a state’s right to control electoral lines otherwise known as gerrymandering. The case ruling concluded that the Supreme Court could hear cases pertaining to redistricting because of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment through the process of incorporation which argues that states must adhere to the protections of guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. How did the ruling in this case contribute to the democratic principle of “one person-one vote”?

Bush v. Gore | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Why was the presidential election of 2000 so controversial, and what constitutional questions were raised during the vote count? This Homework Help video explores these questions to help students understand the fundamental issues at hand in the case of Bush v. Gore.

Engel v. Vitale | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Is school-sponsored prayer in public schools a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment? In 1951, some New York schools began starting the day with a non-denominational prayer. This Homework Help video tells the story of the ensuing landmark Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale.

Brown v. Board of Education | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Brown v Board of Education was a case brought to the Supreme Court in 1954 after Linda Brown, an African American student in Kansas, was denied access to the white-only schools nearby her house. Future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was the lawyer for the case, and argued that segregated schools were inherently unequal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Linda Brown and declared segregation unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment through incorporation under the premise that the bill of rights also applies to the states. This is one of the landmark cases that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Gibbons v. Ogden | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Gibbons v. Ogden was a Supreme Court case dealing with interstate commerce. In 1824, New York created a law that granted Aaron Ogden a monopoly over steamboat access to the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons held a federal license to operate his steamboat between New York and New Jersey. Gibbons won unanimously through his connection of the Interstate Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause. New York’s law was overturned and Gibbons, along with other steamboat operators were able to participate in Interstate Commerce via waterways.

Citizens United v. FEC | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Citizens United v. FEC was a Supreme Court case surrounding campaign finance and corporate involvement in politics. The Federal Election Commission was created in 1971 and greatly regulated the amount of campaign finance political candidates were able to receive. By 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act) restricted organizations from financing issue-based advertisements on behalf of candidates. Citizens United released a million dollar ad against Hillary Clinton. Before the film aired, Citizens United challenged the McCain-Feingold Act, stating that money was a form of Free Speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional, but stated that corporations still cannot give money directly to political candidates.

District of Columbia v. Heller | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Does the 2nd Amendment protect an individual or a collective right to bear arms? Find out the answer to this question in the latest episode of BRI's Homework Help Series on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. 2008 Supreme Court case

Gideon v. Wainwright | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute

Does an individual have a right to a lawyer, regardless of the crime he or she is charged with? In 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering and petty larceny in Panama City, Florida. His request for a state-provided defense attorney was denied since Florida law only required doing so for capital offense cases. After Gideon was sentenced to 5 years in prison, he argued that Florida violated the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel. The Supreme Court heard Gideon’s case, in Gideon v. Wainwright, and ruled in a 9-0 decision that the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of an attorney applies to states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment through incorporation.

Griswold v. Connecticut | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Does the Constitution protect a right to privacy within marriage? Find out the answer to this question in the latest episode of BRI's Homework Help Series. Griswold v. Connecticut debates the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Incorporation allows the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, including the 14th Amendment, to apply to the states and not only the federal government.

McDonald v. Chicago | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute

Does the Second Amendment prevent a city from effectively outlawing handgun ownership? In 2008, Otis McDonald attempted to purchase a handgun for self-defense purposes in a Chicago suburb. However, the city of Chicago had banned handgun ownership in 1982 when it passed a law that prevented issuing handgun registrations. McDonald argued this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause as well as the Due Process Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that McDonald’s Second Amendment right to bear arms was protected at the state and local level by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Marbury v. Madison | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Marbury v. Madison was the Supreme Court case that established judicial review. William Marbury was a judge appointed at the end of John Adams’ presidency, but never got his official commission papers. Once Thomas Jefferson became president, James Madison refused to deliver the commission papers. Marbury took his case to the Supreme Court and wanted a Writ of Mandamus, requiring Madison to deliver the papers. Ultimately, the court stated that Marbury was entitled to his papers, but it was unconstitutional for the courts to issue a Writ of Mandamus. Thus, judicial review was created and the principle of checks and balances was strengthened.

Miranda v. Arizona | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Miranda v. Arizona was a case brought to the Supreme Court in 1966 after Ernesto Miranda appealed his guilty conviction of kidnapping and rape. In his appeal, Miranda claimed he was unaware of his right to remain silent and his resulting confession should not be used to incriminate him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and established the Miranda Warning. This warning is now recited in most instances of arrest to ensure the accused people are aware of their rights.

Grutter v. Bollinger | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Grutter v. Bollinger was a case brought to the Supreme Court over the use of Affirmative Action in the college admissions process. The University of Michigan Law School denied acceptance to Barbara Grutter, despite her impressive resume. Grutter, a white woman, believed that her rejection was based on her race. The Supreme Court Justices ultimately ruled that the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process was constitutional and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. Incorporation, the process of states being held liable to the Bill of Rights, allowed the Supreme Court to hear and rule on the case. However, there was doubt among the most conservative Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Rehnquist that affirmative action policy was a constitutional practice for university admission departments to take part in. Affirmative Action is still a highly debated topic today. What is Affirmative Action? Affirmative Action is a policy, usually carried out by schools, businesses, government entities, and federal contractors, in which individuals of minority racial status are afforded preferential treatment on the basis of race. Affirmative action came about as part of a desire to rectify the traditional underrepresentation of minority peoples in desirable professions and universities, which negatively impacted their financial and social conditions.

Kelo v. New London | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Under what circumstances can the government take your property? In 2005, the Supreme Court took on this question in the case of Kelo v. New London. The court argued about whether applying the 5th Amendment to the states using the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was constitutional or unconstitutional. This process is referred to as incorporation. Our latest Homework Help video reviews the details of the case and encourages students to analyze the decision to form their own opinions.

Mapp v. Ohio | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Can the police use illegally seized evidence in a court of law? The landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio addressed this issue, and the decision has had a lasting impact in the United States.

McCulloch v. Maryland | BRI’s Homework Help Series

McCulloch v. Maryland was the 1819 Supreme Court case dealing mostly with the issue of Federalism. The creation of a National Bank was encouraged by Alexander Hamilton, but opposed by Thomas Jefferson, due to lack of authority given by the Constitution. A National Bank was chartered, but then died 20 years later. In 1816, a National Bank was re-instated to help deal with debts from the War of 1812. This Second National Bank, established in Maryland, was taxed heavily by Thomas Jefferson and the State of Maryland. Federal Bank Cashier, James McCulloch, refused to pay the tax, stating that the state did not have the right to tax an institution of the Federal Government. Ultimately, the Supreme Court stated that Congress had the right to create the National Bank, under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Also, the State of Maryland did not have the right to tax the National Bank and the Federal Government under the Supremacy Clause.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier | BRI’s Homework Help Series

What free speech rights do you have as a student? In the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court ruling, the court found that articles written in the school newspaper are not subject to 1st Amendment, freedom of speech rights for student journalist. Learn how the court came to this answer in the latest episode of BRI's Homework Help Series on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. | BRI’s Homework Help Series

The New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Supreme Court case questions if school officials can randomly search student property while at school under the 4th Amendment? Find out the answer to this question in the latest episode of BRI's Homework Help Series on the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O.

New York Times Co. v. United States | BRI’s Homework Help Series

How to best balance liberty and security has been a perennial question throughout U.S. history. This Homework Help video explores how the Supreme Court addressed this question in the landmark case of New York Times Co. v. United States.

Plessy v. Ferguson | BRI’s Homework Help Series

How did the odious doctrine of “separate but equal” become legally permissible in the U.S.? This Homework Help narrative explores the story of the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case. Further, analyze how the idea of “separate but equal” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment through incorporation that was later struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court Case championing the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Due to the process of incorporation, the Supreme Court was able to eventually rule that the states had to adhere to the protections listed in the Bill of Rights.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a case brought to the Supreme Court over the use of Affirmative Action in the college admission process. The University of California at Davis Medical School created a minimum minority student quota for the admissions department to fill each year. Bakke, a two-time UC-Davis Med School rejected applicant, sued the school for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court justices ruled in support of the goals of Affirmative Action because of incorporation, the idea that the states must adhere to the protections of the Bill of Rights. They also stated that Bakke was, in fact, denied equal protection. This decision, because it was so muddled, did not set long-term precedents or clarifications concerning Affirmative Action. What is Affirmative Action? Affirmative Action is a policy, usually carried out by schools, businesses, government entities, and federal contractors, in which individuals of minority racial status are afforded preferential treatment on the basis of race. Affirmative action came about as part of a desire to rectify the traditional underrepresentation of minority peoples in desirable professions and universities, which negatively impacted their financial and social conditions.

Schenck v. United States | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Schenck v. United States was a Supreme Court Case that explained some limits to the Freedom of Speech afforded by the First Amendment. During World War I, the US instituted a military draft. Many people released anti-war and anti-government information due to their displeasure with the draft. Charles Schenck, an anti-war socialist, was arrested by the Federal Government for circulating a pamphlet encouraging men to resist the draft and violating the Espionage Act of 1917. The Supreme Court ruled that wartime circumstances changed the rules related to free speech and resulted in the “Clear and Present Danger” rule.

Shaw v. Reno | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Can a state draw district lines to increase the voting power of a minority? The Supreme Court took up this question in the 1993 case of Shaw v. Reno. Following the 1962 Baker v. Carr Supreme Court case, which ruled that the Supreme Court could hear cases on gerrymandering because of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment through the process of incorporation, Shaw v. Reno challenged the constitutionality of gerrymandering based on race. Check out our latest Homework Help video on this AP Government required Supreme Court case!

Pottawatomie v. Earls | BRI’s Homework Help Series

What rights do American students have in regards to drug testing in schools? Find out the answer to this question in the latest episode of BRI's Homework Help Series on the case of Pottawatomie v. Earls.

Roe v. Wade | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute

Do women have a right to privacy when deciding whether to have an abortion? In 1969, a woman under the alias “Jane Roe” challenged a Texas law that outlawed abortions. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where Roe argued that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to privacy in having an abortion. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled the right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Like other Supreme Court cases related to the Due Process Clause, incorporation played a part in the Roe v. Wade ruling. Incorporation suggests that states must adhere to the protections granted in the Bill of Rights. To this day, the ruling in Roe v. Wade remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions.

South Dakota v. Dole | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Why is the drinking age set at 21? This Homework Help video explores the dispute between states and the federal government over the legal age, and how it is an example of the principle of federalism in action.

Texas v. Johnson | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Should burning the American flag be considered a form of expression protected by the First Amendment? Learn how the Supreme Court addressed this controversial question in the case of Texas v. Johnson.

Tinker v. Des Moines | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute

Why did a subtle act of protest against a foreign war reach the Supreme Court? In 1965, students John and Mary Beth Tinker wore black armbands to school to protest the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, despite the Des Moines school district prohibiting such an act. The Tinkers sued the district for violating their First Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in a 7-2 decision. While subsequent Supreme Court rulings narrowed the scope of free expression rights at school, Tinker v. Des Moines remains a landmark case that has defined First Amendment rights for students.

U.S. v. Lopez | BRI’s Homework Help Series

This Homework Help narrative explores the landmark case of U.S. v. Lopez and its lasting impact on federalism. Students will study the topic of federal power and street crime while forming their own opinions on the merits of the case.

United States v. Nixon | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Can the President of the United States withhold certain information from Congress and the courts? During the Watergate Scandal, President Richard Nixon attempted to withhold recording tapes from the White House from investigators. The Supreme Court’s ruling would have huge impacts on the system of checks and balances within the United States' governing system.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Should students be required to salute the flag? In 1943, the Supreme Court heard a case after Jehovah's Witnesses in West Virginia refused to comply with a school board policy requiring they salute the U.S. flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. How did the Court rule? Find out with our latest Homework Help video!

Wisconsin v. Yoder | BRI’s Homework Help Series

Religious liberty is one of the foundational principles of American society, but how should it be balanced with government interests in an educated citizenry? Our second Homework Help video of the semester is on the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, and how the Supreme Court dealt with this important question.

Federal Courts in History

Equal Protection and Affirmative Action

Rights of the Accused

Students and the Constitution

Expansion of Expression

Personal Liberty

Federalism and the constitution.

Private Property

Exploring civil and economic freedom.

The Presidency: Constitutional Controversies

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison. Setting the precedent of Judicial review, this lesson focuses on the question of whether or not the Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. This case deals with the issues of slavery, states’ rights, and the interpretation of our Founding documents. This lesson focuses on the question of how the two sides in the Dred Scott decision interpreted the same Founding documents and came to such different conclusions.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of United States v. Nixon. Dealing with the principle of separation of powers, this lesson focuses on the question of whether or not the Constitution’s separation of powers intended to create an absolute executive privilege.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Case background and primary documents concerning Plessy v. Ferguson. Dealing with the principle of Equal Protection, this lesson asks students to evaluate the degree to which custom, precedent, and understanding of federalism informed the ruling in the case.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education. Dealing with the principle of Equal Protection, this lesson asks students to assess the role played by the Court as the protector of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Dealing with the principle of Equal Protection and affirmative action, this lesson asks students to asses whether or not the  University of California at Davis's special admissions program resulted in unconstitutional reverse discrimination.

Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. Dealing with the principle of equal protection and affirmative action, this lesson asks students to evaluate the Court's reasoning in upholding Grutter while striking down Gratz.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio. Dealing with incorporation of the Fourth Amendment and the legality of searches and seizures, this lesson asks students to assess the claim that the exclusionary rule helps ensure liberty and justice.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright. Dealing with whether or not a state must provide a lawyer to the accused, this lesson asks students whether or not they believe the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in all cases and whether the government must provide a lawyer to defendants who want one but cannot afford one.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. Dealing with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and whether or not the accused needs to be advised of their rights upon arrest, this lesson asks students to evaluate the extent to which Miranda is the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines. Dealing with students rights and the First Amendment's protection of free speech, this lesson asks students to evaluate the extent to which the First Amendment should protect symbolic speech, and the degree to which that protection should be guaranteed to students in public schools.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Dealing with the extent of students' First Amendment rights, this lesson asks students to argue whether or not the First Amendment should protect student speech in public school-sponsored newspapers.

Pottawatomie v. Earls (2002)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Pottawatomie v. Earls. Dealing with students' Fourth Amendment protections when in schools, this lesson asks students to assess the Court's evolving definition of "reasonable" searches with respect to public school students.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States. Dealing with the First Amendment's free speech protections and whether it has limits during wartime, this lesson asks students to evaluate the Supreme Court's limitations of free speech set forth in Schenck.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson. Dealing with the First Amendment's freedom of expression protections, this lesson asks students to argue whether or not burning the American flag is so offensive as to be outside the legitimate marketplace of ideas.

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Reno v. ACLU. Dealing with whether or not the First Amendment protected obscene or indecent speech on the internet, this lesson asks students to argue whether or not Congress should be able to ban "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech on the Internet.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Dealing with whether or not a citizen has a natural right to privacy, this lesson asks students to support or refute the Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold that the Constitution protects a right to privacy within marriage that includes the decision to use artificial birth control.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. Dealing with a citizen's Constitutional right to privacy and liberty, this lesson asks students to evaluate the Court's constitutional reasoning in Roe v. Wade.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas. Dealing with a citizen's constitutional right to privacy in regards to sex, this lesson asks students to analyze how the Court's definition of privacy evolved from 1965 to 2003.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland. Dealing with the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause, this lesson asks students to asses to what extent the Necessary and Proper Clause grants a new power to Congress and what is the meaning of "proper" in this context.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of South Dakota v. Dole. Dealing with the whether or not the federal government can attach conditions to money given to states in areas where the federal government has no enumerated power, this lesson asks students to evaluate the extent to which the Court's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause and attachment of conditions to federal funds given to states is consistent with the principle of federalism.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich. Dealing with the Commerce Clause and the government's regulatory powers, this lesson asks students to trace and evaluate the evolution of the Supreme Court's interpretation of Congress's commerce power in light of the principle of federalism.

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. Dealing with whether or not regulations restricting property owners' actions on their own property are protected by the Fifth Amendment, this lesson asks students why property rights are sometimes referred to as a "bundle of sticks".

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Dealing with the "regulatory taking" of property, this lesson asks students how much they think the government should be able to regulate property before it becomes a "taking" requiring just compensation.

Kelo v. New London (2005)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London. Dealing with eminent domain and whether the government can take private property and give it to a private developer, this lesson asks students to evaluate the Court's ruling in the case.

Citizens United v. F.E.C. (2010)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. F.E.C. Dealing with free speech in the political arena, this lesson asks students to asses whether or not the Supreme Court ruled correctly in Citizens United in light of constitutional principles including republican government, freedom of speech, and property rights.

Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)

Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States. Dealing with President Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 and the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II, this lesson asks students to assess the Supreme Court's decision in Korematsu v. United States.

Eisenhower and the Little Rock Crisis (1957)

How did Dwight D. Eisenhower's respond to the Little Rock Crisis? Ask students to asses President Eisenhower's constitutional justification for his decision to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce a federal court's order to integrate public schools.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Case background and primary sources concerning the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore. Dealing with the 2000 election, this lesson asks students whether or not they think the United States Supreme Court correctly decided the case.

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Constitutional Law for a Changing America Resource Center

You are here, a short course, baker v. carr, 369 u.s. 186.

Case Year:  1962

Case Ruling:  6-2, Reversed and Remanded

Opinion Justice:  Brennan

More Information

Tennessee had experienced massive population migration to its urban areas during the first half of the twentieth century, but the state legislature had not redistricted since 1901. The result was a malapportioned state legislature in which the smallest district had nineteen times the representational power of the largest district. Charles Baker and other residents from Memphis, Nash-ville, and Knoxville sued Joseph C. Carr, the state secretary of state, requesting that the court declare the apportionment law unconstitutional and prohibit the state from conducting future elections under it. Feeling bound by the precedent of  Colegrove,  the district court dismissed the suit on grounds that legislative apportionment issues presented political questions over which the judiciary had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

Article III, 2, of the Federal Constitution provides that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. . . ." It is clear that the cause of action is one which "arises under" the Federal Constitution. The complaint alleges that the 1901 statute effects an apportionment that deprives the appellants of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dismissal of the complaint upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter would, therefore, be justified only if that claim were "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit," or "frivolous." That the claim is unsubstantial must be "very plain." Since the District Court obviously and correctly did not deem the asserted federal constitutional claim unsubstantial and frivolous, it should not have dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter. And of course no further consideration of the merits of the claim is relevant to a determination of the court's jurisdiction of the subject matter. We said in an earlier voting case from Tennessee: "It is obvious . . . that the court, in dismissing for want of jurisdiction, was controlled by what it deemed to be the want of merit in the arguments which were made in the complaint as to the violation of the Federal right. But as the very nature of the controversy was Federal, and, therefore, jurisdiction existed, whilst the opinion of the court as to the want of merit in the cause of action might have furnished ground for dismissing for that reason, it afforded no sufficient ground for deciding that the action was not one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States."  Swafford v. Templeton  [1902]. "For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction."  Bell v. Hood  [1946].

Since the complaint plainly sets forth a case arising under the Constitution, the subject matter is within the federal judicial power defined in Art. III, 2, and so within the power of Congress to assign to the jurisdiction of the District Courts. . . .

An unbroken line of our precedents sustains the federal courts' jurisdiction of the subject matter of federal constitutional claims of this nature. The first cases involved the redistricting of States for the purpose of electing Representatives to the Federal Congress. When the Ohio Supreme Court sustained Ohio legislation against an attack for repugnancy to Art. I, 4, of the Federal Constitution, we affirmed on the merits and expressly refused to dismiss for want of jurisdiction "In view . . . of the subject-matter of the controversy and the Federal characteristics which inhere in it. . . ."  Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant  [1916]. When the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit to enjoin the Secretary of State of Minnesota from acting under Minnesota redistricting legislation, we reviewed the constitutional merits of the legislation and reversed the State Supreme Court.  Smiley v. Holm  [1932]. . . . When a three-judge District Court, exercising jurisdiction under the predecessor of 28 u.s.c. 1343 (3), permanently enjoined officers of the State of Mississippi from conducting an election of Representatives under a Mississippi redistricting act, we reviewed the federal questions on the merits and reversed the District Court.  Wood v. Broom  [1932]. A similar decree of a District Court, exercising jurisdiction under the same statute, concerning a Kentucky redistricting act, was reviewed and the decree reversed.  Mahan v. Hume [1932].

The appellees refer to  Colegrove v. Green  [1946] as authority that the District Court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. Appellees misconceive the holding of that case. The holding was precisely contrary to their reading of it. Seven members of the Court participated in the decision. Unlike many other cases in this field which have assumed without discussion that there was jurisdiction, all three opinions filed in  Colegrove  discussed the question. Two of the opinions expressing the views of four of the Justices, a majority, flatly held that there was jurisdiction of the subject matter. MR. JUSTICE BLACK joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice Murphy stated: "It is my judgment that the District Court had jurisdiction . . . ," citing the predecessor of 28 u.s.c. 1343 (3), and  Bell v. Hood  [1946]. Mr. Justice Rutledge, writing separately, expressed agreement with this conclusion. Indeed, it is even questionable that the opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, joined by Justices Reed and Burton, doubted jurisdiction of the subject matter. . . . Several subsequent cases similar to  Colegrove  have been decided by the Court in summary  per curiam  statements. None was dismissed for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.

Two cases decided with opinions after  Colegrove  likewise plainly imply that the subject matter of this suit is within District Court jurisdiction. In  McDougall v. Green  [1948] the District Court dismissed for want of jurisdiction, which had been invoked under 28 u.s.c. 1343 (3), a suit to enjoin enforcement of the requirement that nominees for state-wide elections be supported by a petition signed by a minimum number of persons from at least 50 of the State's 102 counties. This Court's disagreement with that action is clear since the Court affirmed the judgment after a review of the merits and concluded that the particular claim there was without merit. In  South v. Peters  [1950] we affirmed the dismissal of an attack on the Georgia "county unit" system but founded our action on a ground that plainly would not have been reached if the lower court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, which allegedly existed under 28 u.s.c. 1343 (3). The express words of our holding were that "Federal courts consistently refuse to exercise their equity powers in cases posing political issues arising from a state's geographical distribution of electoral strength among its political subdivisions."

We hold that the District Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the federal constitutional claim asserted in the complaint.

We come, finally, to the ultimate inquiry whether our precedents as to what constitutes a nonjusticiable "political question" bring the case before us under the umbrella of that doctrine. A natural beginning is to note whether any of the common characteristics which we have been able to identify and label descriptively are present. We find none: The question here is the consistency of state action with the Federal Constitution. We have no question decided, or to be decided, by a political branch of government coequal with this Court. Nor do we risk embarrassment of our government abroad, or grave disturbance at home if we take issue with Tennessee as to the constitutionality of her action here challenged. Nor need the appellants, in order to succeed in this action, ask the Court to enter upon policy determinations for which judicially manageable standards are lacking. Judicial standards under the Equal Protection Clause are well developed and familiar, and it has been open to courts since the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to determine, if on the particular facts they must, that a discrimination reflects  no  policy, but simply arbitrary and capricious action.

This case does, in one sense, involve the allocation of political power within a State, and the appellants might conceivably have added a claim under the Guaranty Clause. Of course, as we have seen, any reliance on that clause would be futile. But because any reliance on the Guaranty Clause could not have succeeded it does not follow that appellants may not be heard on the equal protection claim which in fact they tender. True, it must be clear that the Fourteenth Amendment claim is not so enmeshed with those political question elements which render Guaranty Clause claims nonjusticiable as actually to present a political question itself. But we have found that not to be the case here. . . .

We conclude that the complaint's allegations of a denial of equal protection present a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision. The right asserted is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING.

I agree with my Brother CLARK that, if the allegations in the complaint can be sustained, a case for relief is established. We are told that a single vote in Moore County, Tennessee, is worth 19 votes in Hamilton County, that one vote in Stewart or in Chester County is worth nearly eight times a single vote in Shelby or Knox County. The opportunity to prove that an "invidious discrimination" exists should therefore be given the appellants.

It is said that any decision in cases of this kind is beyond the competence of courts. Some make the same point as regards the problem of equal protection in cases involving racial segregation. Yet the legality of claims and conduct is a traditional subject for judicial determination. Adjudication is often perplexing and complicated. . . . The constitutional guide is often vague, as the decisions under the Due Process and Commerce Clauses show. The problem under the Equal Protection Clause is no more intricate.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, CONCURRING.

Although I find the Tennessee apportionment statute offends the Equal Protection Clause, I would not consider intervention by this Court into so delicate a field if there were any other relief available to the people of Tennessee. But the majority of the people of Tennessee have no "practical opportunities for exerting their political weight at the polls" to correct the existing "invidious discrimination." Tennessee has no initiative and referendum. I have searched diligently for other "practical opportunities" present under the law. I find none other than through the federal courts. The majority of the voters have been caught up in a legislative strait jacket. Tennessee has an "informed, civically militant electorate" and "an aroused popular conscience," but it does not sear "the conscience of the people's representatives." This is because the legislative policy has riveted the present seats in the Assembly to their respective constituencies, and by the votes of their incumbents a reapportionment of any kind is prevented. The people have been rebuffed at the hands of the Assembly; they have tried the constitutional convention route, but since the call must originate in the Assembly it, too, has been fruitless. They have tried Tennessee courts with the same result, and Governors have fought the tide only to flounder. It is said that there is recourse in Congress, and perhaps that may be, but, from a practical standpoint, this is without substance. To date, Congress has never undertaken such a task in any State. We therefore must conclude that the people of Tennessee are stymied, and, without judicial intervention, will be saddled with the present discrimination in the affairs of their state government.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE HARLAN JOINS, DISSENTING.

The Court today reverses a uniform course of decision established by a dozen cases, including one by which the very claim now sustained was unanimously rejected only five years ago. The impressive body of rulings thus cast aside reflected the equally uniform course of our political history regarding the relationship between population and legislative representation--a wholly different matter from denial of the franchise to individuals because of race, color, religion or sex. Such a massive repudiation of the experience of our whole past in asserting destructively novel judicial power demands a detailed analysis of the role of this Court in our constitutional scheme. Disregard of inherent limits in the effective exercise of the Court's "judicial Power" not only presages the futility of judicial intervention in the essentially political conflict of forces by which the relation between population and representation has time out of mind been, and now is, determined. It may well impair the Court's position as the ultimate organ of "the supreme Law of the Land" in that vast range of legal problems, often strongly entangled in popular feeling, on which this Court must pronounce. The Court's authority--possessed of neither the purse nor the sword--ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court's complete detachment, in fact and in appearance, from political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself into the clash of political forces in political settlements. . . .

Although the District Court had jurisdiction in the very restricted sense of power to determine whether it could adjudicate the claim, the case is of that class of political controversy which, by the nature of its subject, is unfit for federal judicial action. The judgment of the District Court, in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, should therefore be affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS.

I can find nothing in the Equal Protection Clause or elsewhere in the Federal Constitution which expressly or impliedly supports the view that state legislatures must be so structured as to reflect with approximate equality the voice of every voter. Not only is that proposition refuted by history . . . but it strikes deep into the heart of our federal system. Its acceptance would require us to turn our backs on the regard which this Court has always shown for the judgment of state legislatures and courts on matters of basically local concern. In the last analysis, what lies at the core of this controversy is a difference of opinion as to the function of representative government. It is surely beyond argument that those who have the responsibility for devising a system of representation may permissibly consider that factors other than bare numbers should be taken into account. The existence of the United States Senate is proof enough of that. To consider that we may ignore the Tennessee Legislature's judgment in this instance because that body was the product of an asymmetrical electoral apportionment would, in effect, be to assume the very conclusion here disputed. Hence, we must accept the present form of the Tennessee Legislature as the embodiment of the State's choice, or, more realistically, its compromise, between competing political philosophies. The federal courts have not been empowered by the Equal Protection Clause to judge whether this resolution of the State's internal political conflict is desirable or undesirable, wise or unwise. . . .

In conclusion, it is appropriate to say that one need not agree, as a citizen, with what Tennessee has done or failed to do in order to deprecate, as a judge, what the majority is doing today. Those observers of the Court who see it primarily as the last refuge for the correction of all inequality or injustice, no matter what its nature or source, will no doubt applaud this decision and its break with the past. Those who consider that continuing national respect for the Court's authority depends in large measure upon its wise exercise of self-restraint and discipline in constitutional adjudication will view the decision with deep concern. I would affirm.