United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
George D. Zuckerman (Argued the cause the for respondents Carey et al)
Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the United States)
Louis H. Pollak (Argued the cause for the respondents NAACP et al)
Nathan Lewin (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
75-104
Petitioner: 
United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh
Respondent: 
Carey
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1975-1981)
Opinion: 
430 U.S. 144 (1977)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Carey , 430 U.S. 144 (1977)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_104)
Facts of the Case: 

Congress provided in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that reapportionment plans of several states were to be submitted to the U.S. attorney general or the District Court of the District of Columbia for approval. Several districts in New York were restructured to create districts with a minimum nonwhite majority of 65 percent. A Hasidic Jewish community was split in two by the reapportionment. The community claimed that the plan violated their constitutional rights because the districts had been assigned solely on a racial basis.

Question: 

Did the reapportionment plan violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community?

Conclusion: 

The Court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution. Neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment prohibit per se use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. Also, a reapportionment plan does not violate the same Amendments by using numerical quotas to establish a certain number of black majority districts. Although New York deliberately increased nonwhite majorities in several districts, there was no "fencing out" of the white population in the county from electoral participation. The reapportionment did not underrepresent the whites relative to their share of the population. The Court found that New York could use apportionment plans to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted at the expense of the white populations.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for Carey, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Ideology

Wrote a dissent
Burger
Wrote a special concurrence
Brennan
Wrote a special concurrence
Stewart
Wrote the judgment of the Court
White
Did not participate
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority, joined Stewart's concurrence
Powell
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens

Judgment of the Court by Justice Byron R. White