Inc v. Simon
Decision Date | 11 June 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 836,836 |
Citation | 370 U.S. 190,8 L.Ed.2d 430,82 S.Ct. 1234 |
Parties | W.M.C.A., INC., et al. v. Caroline K. SIMON et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Leonard B. Sand and Max Gross, for appellants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, Irving Galt, Asst. Sol. Gen., George C. Mantzoros and Gretchen W. Oberman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Sheldon Raab, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Leo A. Larkin, Benjamin Offner, Bertram Harnett and Francis J. Morgan, for appellees.
On January 11, 1962, the three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint alleging violation of the Constitution of the United States by New York State's constitutional and statutory provisions governing apportionment of State Senate and Assembly Districts. 202 F.Supp. 741. The three judges filed separate opinions, no two of which supported the judgment of dismissal on identical grounds. One opinion expressed the view that the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, want of justiciability, and want of equity. 202 F.Supp., at 742. A second opinion expressed the view that since the apportionment was not alleged to effect a discrimination against any particular racial or religious group, but merely a geographical discrimination, jurisdiction should be exercised, but only to dismiss. 202 F.Supp., at 754. A third opinion rested on the ground that the action was not justiciable and expressed no view on the merits. 202 F.Supp., at 755.
On March 26, 1962, we held in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, that a justiciable federal constitutional cause of action is stated by a claim of arbitrary impairment of votes by means of invidiously discriminatory geographic classification. Our well-established practice of a remand for consideration in the light of a subsequent decision therefore applies. As in Scholle v. Hare, 369 U.S. 429, 82 S.Ct. 910, we believe that the court below should be the first to consider the merits of the federal constitutional claim, free from any doubts as to its justiciability and as to the merits of alleged arbitrary and invidious geographical discrimination. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr, supra.
The motions to substitute Paul R. Screvane in the place of Abe Stark, and Eugene H. Nickerson in the place of A. Holly Patterson, as parties appellee are granted.
Judgment vacated and case remanded.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
For reasons given in my dissent in Scholle v. Hare, 369 U.S. 429, 430, 82 S.Ct. 910, 911, I would affirm or, failing that, note probable jurisdiction. The complaint in this case squarely tenders the issue as to whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution is violated by a state apportionment of seats in both its legislative chambers on other than a substantially proportional populational basis. As in Scholle, the lower court considered this claim on the merits and rejected it by holding that the existing distribution of New York State legislators (founded on principles embodied in the State Constitution since 1894) violated no federal constitutional right.
I read the opinions below quite differently than does the Court. The first opinion is that of Judge Levet, which the Court states 'expressed the view that the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, want of justiciability, and want of equity.' After first holding that the Court had jurisdiction over the action, Judge Levet held that 'the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted' (202 F.Supp., at 753), in that Id., at 749. (Emphasis added.) He then proceeded further: 'If the insufficiency of the complaint be not adequate to require dismissal of the complaint, as I believe it is, then the want of equity in the relief sought, or, to view it slightly differently, want of justiciability, clearly demands dismissal.' Id., at 753.
The second opinion is that of Judge Ryan, described by the Court as expressing ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reynolds v. Sims Vann v. Baggett Connell v. Baggett
...369 U.S., at 226, 82 S.Ct., at 715. 33. Scholle v. Hare, 369 U.S. 429, 82 S.Ct. 910, 8 L.Ed.2d 1 (Michigan); WMCA, Inc., v. Simon, 370 U.S. 190, 82 S.Ct. 1234, 8 L.Ed.2d 430 (New York). 34. 372 U.S., at 379—380, 83 S.Ct., at 808. 35. Id., 372 U.S., at 381, 83 S.Ct., at 809. 36. Id., 372 U.S......
-
Ince v. Rockefeller
...663 (1962), the Supreme Court remanded W.M.C.A., Inc. v. Simon to the said district court for further consideration. 370 U.S. 190, 82 S.Ct. 1234, 8 L.Ed. 2d 430 (1962). The three-judge district court again dismissed, holding that Baker v. Carr required a showing of invidious discrimination,......
-
Scholle v. Hare
...Tawes (May 24, 1962), Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, Maryland; 205 F.Supp. 248; W. M. C. A. v. Simon 205 F.Supp. 248; W. M. C. A., v. Simon (1962), 82 S.Ct. 1234, appeal from N.Y.D.C., 202 F.Supp. 741; Moss v. Burkhart (D.C.Okl.1962), 207 F.Supp. 885; Baker v. Carr (D.C.Tenn.1962), 206 ......
-
Honsey v. Donovan
...186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), Scholle v. Hare, 369 U.S. 429, 82 S.Ct. 910, 8 L.Ed.2d 1 (1962), and WMCA, Inc. v. Simon, 370 U.S. 190, 82 S.Ct. 1234, 8 L.Ed.2d 430 (1962). A detailed analysis of those cases and of their respective procedural approaches is not necessary here. It su......