Baker v. Carr
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
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. Held:
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
1. The District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the federal constitutional claim asserted in the complaint. Pp. 198-204.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
2. Appellants had standing to maintain this suit. Pp. 204-208.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
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.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
179 F. Supp. 824, reversed and cause remanded.
Printed on p. 186 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment XIV, Section 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt14.S1.8.6.2, Amdt14.S1.8.6.3, Amdt14.S1.8.6.4, pp. 2254, 2256.
- Article III, Section 2, Clause 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtIII.S2.C1.11.2, ArtIII.S2.C1.11.3, ArtIII.S2.C1.11.4, ArtIII.S2.C1.2, ArtIII.S2.C1.5.2, ArtIII.S2.C1.6.1, ArtIII.S2.C1.6.9.1, ArtIII.S2.C1.6.9.2, ArtIII.S2.C1.9, ArtIII.S2.C1.9.1, ArtIII.S2.C1.9.10, ArtIII.S2.C1.9.2, ArtIII.S2.C1.9.4, ArtIII.S2.C1.9.5, ArtIII.S2.C1.9.6, ArtIII.S2.C1.9.7, pp. 963, 979, 991, 1032, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1079, 1083, 1106, 1110.
- Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays ArtIV.S4.1, ArtIV.S4.2, ArtIV.S4.3, pp. 1236, 1237, 1239.
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)”:
- most cited in essay topic ArtIII.S2.C1.9 (9 pages)
- cited on 28 pages
- named in the title of essay ArtIII.S2.C1.9.4