Koenig v. Flynn
| Decision Date | 11 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 731,731 |
| Citation | 76 L.Ed. 805,285 U.S. 375,52 S.Ct. 403 |
| Parties | KOENIG et al. v. FLYNN, Secretary of State of New York et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Abraham S. Gilbert and Benjamin L. Fairchild, both of New York City, for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 375-378 intentionally omitted] Mr. Henry Epstein, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Cheif Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners, 'citizens and voters' of the state, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state of New York, in issuing certificates for the election of representatives in Congress, to certify that they are to be elected in the congressional districts defined in the concurrent resolution of the Senate and Assembly of the state, adopted April 10, 1931. The secretary of state, invoking the provisions of article 1, § 4, of the Constitution of the United States, and those of the Act of Congress of August 8, 1911, c. 5, 37 Stat. 13 (2 USCA §§ 2 and note, 3-5), and also the requirements of the Constitution of the state in relation to the enactment of laws, alleged that the concurrent resolution in question was ineffective, as it had not been submitted to the Governor for approval and had not been approved by him. The Court of Appeals of the state, construing the federal constitutional provision as contemplating the exercise of the lawmaking power, sustained the respondent's defense and affirmed the decision of the lower courts refusing the writ. 258 N. Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705. This court granted a writ of certiorari. 285 U. S. 532, 52 S. Ct. 396, 76 L Ed. —.
The state of New York, under the reapportionment pursuant to the Act of Congress of June 18, 1929, c. 28, § 22, 46 Stat. 21, 26 (2 USCA § 2a), is entitled to forty-five representatives in Congress in place of forty-three, the number allotted under the previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. Miller
...it had not been submitted to the Governor for approval, and refused the writ of mandamus. We affirmed the judgment. Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 52 S.Ct. 403, 76 L.Ed. 805. In the light of this course of decisions, we find no departure from principle in recognizing in the instant case tha......
-
Scholle v. Hare
...within the framework of the federal system. See Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795; Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 52 S.Ct. 403, 76 L.Ed. 805; Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380, 52 S.Ct. 402, 76 L.Ed. 807. In actions at law for damages, as early as 1900, the United State......
-
Carey v. Klutznick
...relied upon Smiley v. Holm," 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932), which, with the two other cases of Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 52 S.Ct. 403, 76 L.Ed. 805 (1932) and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380, 52 S.Ct. 402, 76 L.Ed. 807 (1932), "settled the issue in favor of justiciabi......
-
Scott v. Hill, 71-1002.
...g., Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 361, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932) ("citizen, elector, and taxpayer"); Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 379, 52 S.Ct. 403, 76 L.Ed. 805 (1932) ("citizens and voters"); Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1, 4, 53 S.Ct. 1, 77 L.Ed. 131 (1932) (a citizen, elector, and ......
-
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions
...Id.457. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, 227, 230-31 (1920).458. Leser, 258 U.S. at 137.459. 285 U.S. 355 (1932); accord Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375, 379 (1932) (affirming "[f]or the reasons stated in the opinion in Smiley v. Holm"); see also State ex rel. Carroll v. Becker, 45 S.W.2d 533, 5......
-
Rucho v. Common Cause—a Critique
...that the justiciability of cases involving congressional districts was resolved in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U.S. 375 (1932), and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380 (1932)).40. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 4. 41. Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2491, 2505.42. Id. at 2504.43. Comm......