Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
(By special leave of Court, reargued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal)
(Argued the cause for the appellants)
(Reargued the cause for the appellees)
(Reargued the cause for the appellees)
Facts of the Case 

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?

Decision: 6 votes for Baker, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

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.

Cite this Page
BAKER v. CARR. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 31 August 2015. <>.
BAKER v. CARR, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, (last visited August 31, 2015).
"BAKER v. CARR," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed August 31, 2015,