Notable Items:

Petitioner: Charles W. Baker et al.
Respondent: Joe C. Carr, Secretary of State of the State of Tennessee, et al.
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: Baker v. Carr (1962) and redacted text for GVPT439C

Issue(s) Before the Court:

whether the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

Petitioner's Claim(s):

... that the 1901 statute, even as of the time of its passage, "made no apportionment of Representatives and Senators in accordance with the constitutional formula ... , but instead arbitrarily and capriciously apportioned representatives in the Senate and House without reference ... to any logical or reasonable formula whatever."
... that "because of. the population changes since 1900, and the failure of the Legislature to reapportion itself since 1901," the 1901 statute became "unconstitutional and obsolete."
... that. "these plaintiffs and others similarly situated, are denied the equal protection of the laws accorded them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the .Constitution of the United States by virtue of the'debasement of their votes."

These appellants seek relief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of their own, and of those similarly situated. [emphasis added]
Their constitutional claim is, in substance, that the 1901 statute constitutes arbitrary and capricious state action, offensive to the Fouiteenth Amendment .... [emphasis added]
The injury which appellants assert is that this classification disfavors the voters in the counties in which they reside, placing them in a position. of constitutionally unjustifiable inequality .... [emphasis added]

Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

1. The District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the federal constitutional claim asserted in the complaint. Pp. 198-204. [See Part II below]
2. Appellants had standing to maintain this suit. Pp. 204-208. [See Part III below]
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. 208-237.
Disposition:179 F. Supp. 824, reversed and cause remanded

Material Facts:

Procedural History:


Brennan Majority Opinion (Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Stewart) (187-237)

Douglas Concurrance (241-250)

Clark Concurrance (251-264)

Stewart Concurrance (265-266)

Frankfurter Dissent (Harlan) (266-330)

Harlan Dissent (Frankfurter) (330-349)

Majority Full Argument