Argued on April 19, 1961
Reargued on October 9, 1961
Decided on March 26, 1962
Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901
law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly
was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment
efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts
within the state.
Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction
over questions of legislative apportionment?
Argued on April 19, 1961
Reargued on October 9, 1961
Decided on March 26, 1962
Advocates Charles S. Rhyne argued the cause for the appellants
(Apr. 19, 1961)
Jack Wilson Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the
cause for the appellees (Apr. 19, 1961)
Z. T. Osborn, Jr. reargued the cause for the appellees (Oct. 9,
1961)
Jack Wilson Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee, reargued
the cause for the appellees (Oct. 9, 1961)
Charles S. Rhyne reargued the cause for the appellants (Oct. 9,
1961)
Archibald Cox Solicitor General, by special leave of Court, reargued
the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal
In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.