Baker v. Carr

E126158

United States Supreme Court case landmark case

Baker v. Carr is a landmark 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that established federal courts’ authority to hear legislative redistricting disputes under the Equal Protection Clause, paving the way for the “one person, one vote” principle.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label	Occurrences
Baker v. Carr canonical	16

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ
arguedDate	1961-04-19 ⓘ
background	Tennessee had not reapportioned its legislative districts for decades despite population shifts ⓘ
category	United States Supreme Court cases ⓘ United States equal protection case law ⓘ United States legislative redistricting case law ⓘ
citation	369 U.S. 186 ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	Equal Protection Clause ⓘ surface form: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedBy	Warren Court era ⓘ surface form: Warren Court
decisionDate	1962-03-26 ⓘ
dissentingJustices	Charles E. Whittaker ⓘ Felix Frankfurter ⓘ
doctrineEstablished	federal justiciability of legislative apportionment claims ⓘ
effect	enabled federal courts to review state legislative districting schemes ⓘ limited the scope of the political question doctrine in apportionment cases ⓘ
fullCaseName	Charles W. Baker et al. v. Joe C. Carr, Secretary of State of Tennessee, et al. ⓘ
holding	claims of legislative apportionment under the Equal Protection Clause are justiciable in federal court ⓘ federal courts have authority to hear challenges to state legislative redistricting under the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States federal law ⓘ
legalIssue	justiciability ⓘ legislative apportionment ⓘ legislative redistricting ⓘ political question doctrine ⓘ
majorityJustices	Earl Warren ⓘ Hugo L. Black ⓘ John M. Harlan II ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ Tom C. Clark ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
originatingState	Tennessee ⓘ
page	186 ⓘ
petitioner	Charles W. Baker ⓘ
plaintiffsClaim	malapportionment of Tennessee legislative districts diluted urban voters' votes in violation of the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ
precedentFor	Reynolds v. Sims decision ⓘ surface form: Reynolds v. Sims Wesberry v. Sanders ⓘ one person, one vote cases ⓘ
rearguedDate	1961-10-09 ⓘ 1961-10-10 ⓘ
relatedAreaOfLaw	civil rights ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ election law ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	one person, one vote ⓘ
respondent	Joe C. Carr ⓘ
respondentOffice	Tennessee Secretary of State ⓘ surface form: Secretary of State of Tennessee
volume	369 U.S. ⓘ

Referenced by (16)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

William J. Brennan Jr. → notableWork → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Felix Frankfurter → notableCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Brennan → notableWork → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

subject surface form: William J. Brennan Jr.

Guarantee of Republican Government → interpretedIn → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Guarantee Clause → notableCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

"One man, one vote" → hasLegalInfluenceOn → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

subject surface form: One man, one vote

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections → relatedTo → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Reynolds v. Sims decision → precededByCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

United States congressional apportionment → relatedCaseLaw → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Luther v. Borden → relatedCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon → relatedCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

political question doctrine → leadingCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

political question doctrine → keyTestFormulatedIn → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Warren Court era → notableCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Charles E. Whittaker → notableCaseInvolvement → Baker v. Carr ⓘ

Colegrove v. Green → isRelatedCase → Baker v. Carr ⓘ