Baker v. Carr: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Voting case) |
(Guy-Uriel Charles) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|other_subjects=Voting; Congress | |other_subjects=Voting; Congress | ||
|case_treatment=No | |case_treatment=No | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-the-national-constitution-center/us-gov-landmark-supreme-court-cases/v/baker-v-carr?modal=1 | |||
|case_text_source=Khan Academy discussion with Theodore Olson & Guy-Uriel Charles | |||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
'''Issues''' | '''Issues''' | ||
Revision as of 17:04, June 26, 2022
| Baker v. Carr | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 369 U.S. 186 (1962) |
| Date decided | 1962 |
Resources
Issues
Whether an equal protection challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures is a non-justiciable political question.
Holding/Decision
Apportionment cases can involve no federal constitutional right except one resting on the guaranty of a republican form of government, and complaints based on that clause have been held to present political questions which are non-justiciable.
Rules
Issues involving political questions
- a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
- a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
- the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly nonjudicial discretion
- the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government
- an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
- the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question
Dissent
The present case involves all the elements which have made the Guarantee Clause cases non-justiciable.
