Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the Fourteenth Amendment 's equal protection clause, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases.
Radovich v. National Football League: 352 U.S. 445 (1957) professional football covered by antitrust laws Reid v. Covert: 354 U.S. 1 (1957) treaty power, right to jury trial Watkins v. United States: 354 U.S. 178 (1957) rights of a witness in refusing to answer questions before the House Un-American Activities Committee: Yates v. United States ...
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) – Apportionment of Congressional districts is a political question (Overruled by Baker v. Carr). Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) – Apportionment of state legislatures is not a political question. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) – Congressional authority to exclude members who have met ...
Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent. 5–4 Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation: 2007: Bond v. United States: 2011
The first modern application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting law came in Baker v. Carr (1962), where the Court ruled that the districts that sent representatives to the Tennessee state legislature were so malapportioned (with some legislators representing ten times the number of residents as others) that they violated the Equal ...
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that districts in the United States House of Representatives must be approximately equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v.
However, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) the United States Supreme Court distinguished the Colegrove decision holding that malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were not exempt from judicial review under Article IV, Section 4, as the equal protection issue in this case was separate from any ...
The Luther v Borden article correctly states that it is the law to this day - which is to say the Guarantee Clause is non-justiciable. Colegrove v Green simply relied on Luther, because there the appellant argued the districting violated the Guarantee Clause. The Colegrove article says it was overruled by Baker v Carr. As a practical matter ...