Baker v. Carr
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Alabama Supreme Court declined to extend it to a claim of equal representation on every legislative vote. The text of two citing opinions could not be retrieved. The other opinions read generally applied Baker's political-question, voting, or standing principles or discussed other authorities.
6,169 later cases cite Baker v. Carr; 280 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Baker v. Carr?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to extend Baker's apportionment principle to a political committee's endorsement of a primary candidate.
Gallant v. LaFrance · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · filed
No- case has been called to our attention, nor has- our independent research discovered -any, where the principle laid down in Baker v. Carr, supra, has b-een extended so as to govern those circumstances with which we are confronted here. We perceive no- sound reason on which to predicate su-ch an extension.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Alabama Supreme Court declined to extend Baker's equal-representation principle to representation on each legislative vote.
Alabama Citizens Action Program v. Kennamer · Supreme Court of Alabama · filed
In Baker, the United States Supreme Court held that a complaint alleging denial of equal protection based on the failure of the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself to reflect population changes presented a justiciable constitutional cause of action. The question in the case before us is not whether the citizens of each legislative district are entitled to representation in the legislature proportionate to the population of the district, but whether they are entitled to such representation on each vote taken in the legislature. If we held affirmatively, then every act passed when some senators or representatives were allegedly absent could be challenged on the ground that the constituents of those absent legislators were denied equal representation on that issue. We will not do so, because the effect of such a holding would be to intrude on the inner workings of the legislature.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Baker v. Carr and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace