Question

Assignment: Baker Vs Carr (1962)

Case background:
1. Identify the plaintiff and defendant in the case.

2. Explain why the case was brought to the Supreme Court.

3. Describe the goal of each side in the case. Why was the case brought to the court, and what type of decision was desired?


Constitutional connections
1. Explain the key rights or amendments involved in the case.

2. Did the case primarily center on an issue of civil rights or liberties, or does it primarily center on other issues? Explain.


Case outcomes
1. Describe the majority decision of the court and several arguments as to why the justices ruled the way they did.

2. If there was one dissenting decision of the court, explain it in detail. Why did some justices disagree with the majority?

3. What precedent was set by the court’s decision? What impact did it have on US society?

Read Documents Below:

Answer 1

In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court affirmed federal court authority to address unequal state legislative districts, citing the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The decision set a precedent for judicial review in districting matters, impacting subsequent cases and reinforcing the principle of equal representation under the Constitution.

Case Background:

1. Plaintiff and Defendant:

- Plaintiff: Baker (petitioner)

- Defendant: Carr (respondent)

2. Reason for Supreme Court Involvement:

- The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine whether federal courts had the constitutional authority to review and intervene in state legislative districts. Baker argued that the unequal distribution of voters in Tennessee violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

3. Goals of Each Side:

- Baker (Petitioner): Advocated for the courts to address the constitutional violation, emphasizing the need to protect the right to equal representation under the 14th Amendment.

- Carr (Respondent): Contended that federal courts lacked authority to review legislative districts, asserting the principle of state sovereignty and arguing that districting decisions were a political matter best left to the states.

Constitutional Connections:

1. Key Rights or Amendments:

- Article III, Section 2: Baker argued that the judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution.

- 14th Amendment: Baker contended that the unequal distribution of voters violated the residents' equal protection rights.

2. Civil Rights or Liberties:

- The case primarily centered on civil rights, specifically the equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment, as Baker sought to address the unequal representation in state legislative districts.

Case Outcomes:

1. Majority Decision:

- In a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Baker. The majority, led by Justice Brennan, asserted that federal courts had the authority to enforce equal protection against state officials, rejecting the notion that the issue was a non-justiciable political question. The decision set a precedent for federal courts to scrutinize and intervene in state legislative districting.

2. Dissenting Opinion:

- Justices Frankfurter and Harlan dissented, arguing that the Court's precedent and the Constitution did not grant federal courts the authority to review state districting decisions. They emphasized the political nature of districting and the importance of respecting state legislatures' judgment in such matters.

3. Precedent and Impact:

- The decision established a precedent for federal courts to intervene in cases where state legislative districts were deemed unconstitutionally imbalanced. It empowered citizens to challenge districting decisions based on violations of the equal protection clause, impacting subsequent cases on the constitutionality of districting.