Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Case Holdings 126-239 (Supplemental Cases)

Terms in this set (113)

SAENZ V. ROE (NOT MC TESTED)
The Court held the state law that limited the amount of welfare benefits averrable to newly arrived residents was unconstitutional under the privileges or immunities clause because the right to travel/relocate is protected by the clause.
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT
The court held the state law subjecting the plaintiff to double jeopardy did not violate any fundamental liberty because the 5th amendment's immunity from double jeopardy does not apply to the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
The court held the state law permitting comment on the defendant's failure to testify did not violate due process because the 5th amendment's right against self-incrimination does not apply to the states under the due process clause.
DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA
The Court held the 6th amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases applies to the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment because the right to a jury in criminal cases in fundamental to American justice.
MCDONALD V. CHICAGO
The court held the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated by the due process clause of the 14th amendment, thus is applies to the states.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES: US V. STANLEY
The Court held that provisions of the Civil Rights Act that prohibited private citizens from discriminating against others were invalidated under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment prohibits discriminatory STATE action, not individual invasion of individual rights, no matter how discriminatory.
MARSH V. ALABAMA
The Court held a state law that attempted to punish the distribution of religious literature in a privately-owned town constituted state action in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments, because the town's public character transformed the private entity into a state entity.
JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
The Court held a private company's termination of Jackson's electric service without due process did not constitute state action because the operation of the utility services was not a public function.
TERRY V. ADAMS
The Court held the Jaybird Democratic Association's racially-restrictive pre-primary elections constituted state action that violated the 15th amendment because the state's failure to regulate the Jaybirds was an abuse of elections, and its tolerance of the discrimination reflected a purposeful decision to maintain the system.
EVANS V. NEWTON
The Court held private trustee's exclusion of African Americans from using a park constituted state action that was subject to the equal protection requirements of the 14th amendment. When private property is municipal in character, its regulations serve as a public function, even if managed by private entities.
AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA
The Court held the private shopping center may not exclude members of the public who wished to exercise their first amendment rights to strike on the premises. A private shopping center is the functional equivalent of a municipality; thus its actions constitute state action.
LLOYD CORP V. TANNER
The court held private shopping center may restrict protestor's first amendment rights to protest Vietnam War on the premises. A private shopping center is not the functional equivalent of a municipality; thus its actions do not constitute state action.
HUDGENS V. NLRB
The court held the private shopping center may restrict the picketer's first amendment rights to strike on the premises. A private shopping center is not the functional equivalent of a municipality; thus its actions do not constitute state action.
SHELLEY V. KRAEMER
The Court held the 14th amendment does not shield against private discrimination; however judicial enforcement of the private restrictive covenant constitutes state action for purposes of the 14th amendment.
LUGAR V. EDMONDSON OIL
The court held a Sheriff's attachment of plaintiff's property constituted state action in violation of the due process clause because the sheriff acted together with the company to attach the property.
BURTON V. WILMINGTON PARKING AUTHORITY
The court held privately-owned restaurant's exclusion of a Burton (black) constituted discriminatory state action in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because when a state leases public property to a private business and their relationship is mutually beneficial, the private business's actions are that of the state.
MOOSE LODGE V. IRVIS
The court held granting of a liquor license to a discriminatory private organization does not constitute state action for purposes of the 14th amendment. For state action to be found, it must be shown that the state, through an exercise of its power and authority, fostered discrimination.
NORWOOD V. HARRISON
The Court held loaning state-purchased textbooks to students in discriminatory private schools constitutes state action via the 14th amendment because by supplying textbooks, the state was directly supporting the private school discrimination.
RENDELL-BAKER V. KOHN
The Court held private school's decision to discharge Rendell-Baker and other members for their speech activities did not constitute state action for purposes of the 14th amendment. Even though the school's income came primarily from public funding, and was regulated by public authorities, the state did not show any interest in regulating the school's personal matters, and the decisions were not influenced by any state regulation.
BLUM V. YARETSKY
The court held private nursing home's decision to transfer or discharge Medicaid-eligible patients without a hearing does not constitute state action for purpose of the 14th amendment, because even though the nursing home received Medicare funding from the state, all decisions regarding the discharges were made by private nursing home staff, not state officials.
REITMAN V. MULKEY
The Court invalidated Prop 14, which protected the right to discriminate in the sale of residential property, on the grounds that it encouraged discrimination and placed the state in the position of sanctioning and encouraging private discrimination to the extent that it constituted state action under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
BRENTWOOD ACADEMY V. TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ASSN.
The Court held the private association's decision to penalized the school by placing them on probation constituted state action of purposes of the 14th amendment, because of the state's pervasive entwinement with the structure of the association.
ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA
The Court held Louisiana law, which prohibited residents from doing business with out-of-state insurance companies, was unconstitutional as an interference with the right to contract, violating the due process clause. "Liberty" embraces the right to contract.
LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
The Court held that NY state labor law attempting to regulate the maximum hours for bakers was an unconstitutional interference with Lochner's right to contract, thus it was a violation of the due process clause. The right to contract is implicit in the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
MULLER V. OREGON
The Court held that Oregon state law, which prohibited employers from employing females for more than 10 hours per day, was constitutional because the law did not violate the right to contract since it had a valid police purpose.
ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
The Court held DC's minimum wage law, which fixed minimum wages for women and children, was unconstitutional because it impermissibly interfered with the right to contract and did not serve a valid police purpose.
WEAVER V. PALMER BROS
The court held the state law, which prohibited the use of shoddy in making bedding, was struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the due process clause, since the laws interfered with the right to contract for those who wished to buy and sell such products.
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
The court held the state law, which fixed milk prices, was constitutional and did not violate the due process clause. States are free to adopt whatever economic policy may be reasonably deemed to promote the public welfare so long as the laws are rationally related to the legitimate purpose.
WEST COAST HOTEL V. PARRISH
The court held the state law, which required a minimum wage for female employees, was constitutional and did not violate the due process clause, because the protection of women's health and from discrimination from employers was a valid police purpose.
US V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS
The court held the Filled Milk Act, which prohibited the interstate shipment of filled milk, was constitutional and did not violate the due process clause because it is up to the legislature, and not the courts, to determine what the state interest is so economic regulations will be given a presumption of constitutionality.
WILLIAMSON V. LEE OPTICAL OF OKLAHOMA
The court held the state law, which prohibited non-licensed optometrists from fitting or replacing lenses unless they had written authority, was constitutional because it bore a rational relationship to the state objective.
BMW V. GORE
The Court held the award of $2 million in punitive damages against the company for non-disclosure of the repaint job was unconstitutional because it was grossly excessive and thus violated the due process clause.
STATE FARM V. CAMPBELL
The Court held the punitive damages award that was 145 times greater than the compensatory damages award violated due process.
PHILIP MORRIS V. WILLIAMS
The court held the punitive damages award that was based on the total number of deaths caused by cigarette advertising, rather than just the plaintiff's death violated the due process because the due process clause bans punitive damages for harm caused to third parties who are not involved in litigation.
HOME BUILDING & LOAN V. BLAISDELL
The Court held the Minnesota law, which imposed a 2-year moratorium on foreclosures did not violate the Contracts Clause.
ENERGY RESERVES V. KANSAS POWER & LIGHT
The court held the state law, which barred the price increase of natural gas which had been agreed upon between two private parties, did not violate the contracts clause.
US TRUST V. NEW JERSEY
The court held the retroactive repeal of the state's covenant, which prohibited the use of toll revenues for anything other than paying back the bond holders, was a violation of the contracts clause. Government interference with its own contracts is only constitutional if it is reasonable and necessary.
LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV
The Court held the company's cable installation on the party's building constituted a taking because it was a permanent physical occupation.
PENNSYLVANIA COAL V. MAHON
The Court held the state law forbidding the company from mining coal under the land constituted a taking because private property is considered taken when the regulation results in a severe diminution in the value of the property.
MILLER V. SCHOENE
The court held that an act that allowed the destruction of red cedars to prevent the spread of cedar rust disease, was not a taking because there is no taking when the government destroys property to preserve another class of property that is of greater value to the public.
PENN CENTRAL V. NEW YORK CITY
The Court held the city's landmarks law, which prevented the party from erecting a skyscraper over the station, did not constitute a taking requiring just compensation because there was still a reasonable economically viable use.
LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
The court held the state law that prevented plaintiff from constructing homes on his coastal lots because they were located in a coastal zone, constituted a taking requiring just compensation because there was no reasonably economically viable use of the property.
NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMM.
The Court held the commission's refusal to issue a permit allowing the party to renovate his house subject to an easement which allowed the public to pass through the property, could be a taking, unless the government could show: 1) the condition relates to a legitimate gov. interest; and 2) the adverse impact of the proposed building/development on the area is proportional to the loss caused to the property owner.
DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD
The Court held the city's issuance of a permit to expand a person's store, subject to the condition she dedicate a portion of her property to the city for a drainage system and a bike path, constituted a taking requiring just compensation unless the city could show a sufficient relationship between the dedications and the impact the expansion would have on the area.
PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND
The Court held that even when a person takes title to property knowing that it is subject to a restriction, they may still bring a takings claim.
TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL V. TAHOE PLANNING AGENCY
The temporary moratorium on development, which was enacted in order to formulate a plan to preserve the land, did not constitute a taking. In deciding whether or not a temporary delay on all economically viable uses of property is a taking, the court will consider the surrounding circumstances to determine if the temporary delay is so severe that just compensation must be paid.
HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. MIDKIFF
A state act that used its condemnation power to redistribute land from private to public landowners was a "public use" within the meaning of the 5th amendment, because the act was reforming the land system for everyone's benefit, not just to benefit a specific individual.
KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON
The city's condemnation of the plaintiff's private residence did not constitute a taking requiring just compensation because government economic development constitutes public use.
BROWN V. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASHINGTON
Plaintiff was not entitled to just compensation, since his pecuniary loss at the time of the taking was zero. Just compensation is measured by the property owner's loss (FMV) at the time of the taking, rather than by the government's gain.
ROMER V. EVANS
The Court held the state law which forbade the government from enacting any law that would protect homosexuals against discrimination, was unconstitutional because the classification made homosexuals unequal to everyone else, which is not a legitimate government purpose.
RAILWAY EXPRESS V. NEW YORK
The court held the state law, which allowed advertising on business vehicles but prohibited advertising on all other vehicles, was constitutional because the classification was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of public safety. Equal protection does not require that a classification eliminate all evil of the same type.
NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY V. BEAZER
The court held that the entity's rule, which refused to employ anyone who used methadone, was constitutional because the classification was rationally related to the state's interest in protecting public safety and anything short of total exclusion would have been insufficient.
US DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE V. MORENO
The court held the Food Stamp Act, which denied food stamps to households with unrelated individuals was unconstitutional because the classification was not related to the government's interests.
CLEBURNE CITY V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER
The Court held the city's refusal to issue a special use permit to build a home (living center) for the mentally retarded was unconstitutional because the refusal was based on an irrational prejudice against the mentally disabled.
DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD
The Court held that plaintiff could not petition the court for his freedom because slaves are not entitled to the rights, privileges, and immunities within the constitution since the word "citizen" does not include slaves.
KOREMATSU V. US
The Court held that an executive order requiring all Japanese persons to be excluded from a military area during WWII was constitutional because it was justified by the compelling gov't interest in military necessity.
LOVING V. VIRGINIA
The Court held the state law, which banned interracial marriage, was an unconstitutional facial classification because its aim was to maintain white supremacy, which is not a compelling governmental interest.
PALMORE V. SIDOTI
The court held that the court order, which granted custody to the dad solely because the mom was living with a black man, was an unconstitutional facial classification because protecting the child from the "stigma" of an interracial marriage is not a compelling interest.
PLESSY V. FERGUSON
The Court held the state law that required all railway companies to provide separate cars for blacks and whites was constitutional and did not violate equal protection because the cars were "separate but equal."
BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Court held that segregation in school was unconstitutional even if accommodations are separate but equal because it implies the inferiority of black children which affects their ability to learn and therefore deprives them of education.
JOHNSON V. CA
The Court held that the policy of segregating prisoners based on race may be constitutional but is subject to strict scrutiny.
WASHINGTON V. DAVIS
The Court held that DCPD's applicant test was constitutional because even though more blacks failed the test, there was no proof of a discriminatory purpose.
MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
The Court rejected a prisoner's claim that the state's death sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner because statistics did not prove that the legislation was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.
CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
When blacks sued the city because no black person was ever elected to the city commission, the Court held the electoral system was constitutional because there was no proof of a discriminatory purpose and blacks had the same voting rights as everyone else.
PALMER V. THOMPSON
The Court held that the city's decision to close public pools rather than segregate them, was constitutional because the closures affected all races equally so the discriminatory purpose was not enough.
PERSONNEL ADMIN OF MASS V. FEENEY
The Court held a state law giving preference to hiring veterans was constitutional even though it had a discriminatory effect against women because knowledge of a discriminatory effect is insufficient to show purposeful discrimination.
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. METRO HOUSING
The Court held that when a request to rezone a parcel of land from single family to multiple family classifications was denied, the denial was constitutional because there was no proof of a discriminatory purpose.
SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
When school authorities deliberately maintained a racially segregated school system, the federal district courts have broad equitable powers to use any remedies reasonably necessary to desegregate the system.
MILIKEN V. BRADLEY
The court held that a federal court's multi-district remedy to a single-district's desegregation problem was unconstitutional because there was no proof that the other districts segregated, nor that the violation in one district caused inter-district segregation.
OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS V. DOWELL
The Court held that when an injunction to desegregate school had achieved its goals, it was constitutional for the court to permanently dissolve the injunction.
PARENTS INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
The court held the school district's reassignment plan, which assigned students to schools based on their race as a remedy to achieve a racial balance between schools in the district, was unconstitutional because the Seattle School District never racially segregated schools in the first place.
RICHMOND V. JA CROSON
A city may only use its powers to remedy private discrimination if it identifies that discrimination with the particularity required by the 14th amendment.
GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER
The Court held that the U of MI Law School's admissions policy which used race as a factor in admissions was constitutional because the school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions was used to further the interest in having a diverse student body.
GRATZ V. BOLLINGER
The Court held that U of MI's undergrad admissions policy, which automatically awarded points to minorities, was unconstitutional because it did not use narrowly tailored means to further the interest in having a diverse student body.
EASLEY V. CROMARTIE
The court held the state district court mistakenly found the state legislature used race as the predominant factor in drawing its district boundaries because racial identification and political affiliation are highly correlated so the district shapes did not establish that race was the predominant factor.
FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON
The court held a statute that provides that servicemen's wives are automatically eligible for benefits as dependents while servicewomen's husbands must demonstrate husband's dependence, was unconstitutional B'C sex, like race & national origin are immutable characteristics, classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict scrutiny.
CRAIG V. BOREN
OK law allowed females to purchase "non-intoxicating" alcohol at 19 but not males until 21; UN-Con. A governmental regulation involving gender discrimination is constitutional if it is SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED related to the achievement of an important government purpose [Intermediate Scrutiny is Born].
US V. VIRGINIA
VA Military Institute's male only admission policy was UN-con b'c the gov purpose of producing "citizen-soldiers" was not substantially advanced by the exclusion of women. All governmental gender classifications must be substantially related to an important government purpose that can be demonstrated by the government if it offers "an exceedingly persuasive justification" for the classification.
GEDULDIG V. AIELLO
Discrimination based on pregnancy in a state disability insurance program is subject to rational basis review and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition on gender discrimination. [overruled by statute later]
ORR V. ORR
Alabama state alimony law, which provides that husbands, but not wives, may be required to pay alimony was UN-Con. A state may not discriminate on the basis of gender if the state's compensatory and ameliorative purposes are equally served by a gender-neutral classification.

"There is no reason to use sex as a proxy for need."
MISSISSIPPI UNIV. FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN
The court held that MI law, which allowed the Univ to limit enrollment to women only, was UN-Con b'c the discrimination based on gender may be unconstitutional if the statutory objective itself reflects ARCHAIC and STEREOTYPICAL notions relating to gender. There must be "exceeding persuasive justification."
MICHAEL M. V. SC OF SONOMA COUNTY
A state statutory rape law that discriminates against males does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it deters males from engaging in sexual behavior that might lead to illegitimate pregnancies.
ROSTKER V GOLDBERG
A congressional act that requires men and not women to register for a military draft does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because women cannot statutorily participate in combat and thus are not similarly situated as men.
CALIFANO V. WEBSTER
A Social Security Act provision that advantages women in calculating old-age insurance benefits does not violate the Equal Protection Clause if it is directed towards remedying the historical effects of economic discrimination against women in the workforce.
NGUYEN V. INS
When a child, born overseas and out of wedlock to unmarried parents consisting of a United States citizen and non-citizen, seeks United States citizenship, governmental gender classifications that require more stringent proof of citizen parents' paternity than maternity are constitutional based on the inherent biological differences between men and women.
GRAHAM V. RICHARDSON
Under the Equal Protection Clause, states may not condition receipt of welfare benefits on the beneficiary having United States citizenship or residing in the United States for a specified number of years.
FOLEY V CONNELIE
A state may confine employment in its police department to United States citizens because police officers perform basic governmental functions that may be constitutionally reserved for members of the national political community.
AMBACH V NORWICK
A state may refuse to employ as elementary and secondary school teachers aliens who refuse to seek naturalization.
PYLER V DOE
States may not deny free public education to children not legally admitted into the United States.
MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF RETIREMENT V. MURGIA
A state statute instituting mandatory retirement for police officers at age fifty is subject to rational basis review and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
LOVING V VIRGINIA
A state may not restrict marriages between persons solely on the basis of race under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
ZABLOCKI V REDHAIL
The right to marry is a fundamental right, and refusing to issue a marrigae license for unpaid alimony limits that right and is UN-Con., unless they are narrowly-tailored to the accomplishment of an important governmental purpose.
STANLEY V ILLINOIS
All parents are entitled to a hearing to determine their fitness before the state deprives them of custody of their children.
MICHAEL H. V. GERALD D.
The right of a potential natural father to assert parental rights over a child born into a woman's existing marriage with another man is not traditionally recognized in historical jurisprudence and is not a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
The right of related family members to live together is fundamental and protected by the Due Process Clause, and necessarily encompasses a broader definition of "family" than just members of the nuclear family.
MEYER V NEBRASKA
A state may not prohibit the teaching of foreign languages to a young child in school when such teaching has been requested by the child's parent because this interferes with the fundamental liberty interest of a parent to control his or her child's education.
PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS
Requiring children to be educated only by public instruction violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
TROXEL V GRANVILLE
Under the Due Process Clause, a state court may not grant visitation rights to grandparents, even when doing so would be in a child's best interest if those visitation rights are opposed by the child's parent because doing so interferes with the parent's fundamental liberty interest in rearing his or her child.
BUCK V BELL
The Court found that the statute allowing gov to sterilize women (salpingectomy) did not violate the Constitution. Citing the best interests of the state, Justice Holmes affirmed the value of a law like Virginia's in order to prevent the nation from "being swamped with incompetence . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
SKINNER V OKLAHOMA (Not Tested Spr '17)
A state law requiring forced sterilization of criminals convicted of crimes of moral turpitude unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental rights of marriage and procreation and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CLAPPER V AMNESTY INTNL. USA
A threatened injury must be CERTAINLY IMPENDING to constitute injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing.
HOLLINGSWORTH V PERRY
A private party does not have standing in federal court to defend the constitutionality of a state law if the responsible state officials fail to do so.
US V WINDSOR
(1) A reviewing court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal even if the appellant is not seeking redress from an adverse judgment, provided the party retains a sufficient stake in the case to satisfy Article III of the Constitution.

(2) A federal statute excluding same-sex couples from the definition of marriage for purposes of federal benefits is unconstitutional.
SHELBY COUNTY V HOLDER
Requirement that States have to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting was unconstitutional since it intruded on state sovereignty and did so based on data that was decades old. A federal law that departs from the fundamental principles of federalism must be justified by current needs.
NLRB V NOEL CANNING
President unconstitutionally invoked the Recess Appointments Clause to appoint three individuals to the National Labor Relations Board since the Constitution only empowers the President to fill an existing vacancy during any recess of sufficient length.
ZIVOTOFSKY V KERRY
Article II of the Constitution grants the U.S. president the exclusive authority to formally recognize a foreign sovereign through executive power that Congress may not contradict via statute.
MCBURNEY V YOUNG
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that "all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizens of the Commonwealth," but grants no such right to citizens of other states. The court held The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only those privileges and immunities deemed "fundamental." While the P&I Clause protects the right of citizens to "engage in a common calling," the challenged state law must have been enacted for the protectionist purpose of burdening out-of-state citizens.
COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF MARYLAND V WYNNE
The dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibit states from taxing all the income of their residents by mandating a credit for taxes paid in other states.
The Court held that, to be permissible under the dormant Commerce Clause, a tax scheme must satisfy the "internal consistency test," which asks whether the tax scheme in question would disadvantage interstate commerce if it were applied identically in every state. If so, then the tax is unconstitutional.
KOONTZ V ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMNT
The government's demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must have a nexus and rough proportionality between the demand and the effects of the proposed land use even when the government denies the permit and even when the government's demand is for money.
HORNE V DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
The Takings Clause CAN be used as a defense in actions regarding a government-mandated transfer of funds. The Supreme Court held that the defendants' Takings Clause claims must be evaluated under their capacity as handlers rather than producers, because it is only in their capacity as handlers that they would be subject to the fines in question.
FISHER V UNIV OF TEXAS
An institution of higher education using race as a factor in the admissions process must do so in good faith and ensure that each applicant's race or ethnicity is not the sole determinant.
OBERGEFELL V HODGES
Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses and recognize lawful out-of-state marriages for same-sex couples.
AZ LEGISLATURE v. AZ REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
The Court held that the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution did not preclude an independent commission, created by initiative, from creating the map for congressional federal districts. Judicial precedent establishes that redistricting is a legislative function that must be performed in accordance with the state Constitution's structure of lawmaking; Because the use of such an initiative would not be questioned if it were employed to redistrict for local and state elections, it should also be allowed for federal elections.
Other sets by this creator