Citation network
Beer Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 30, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 425 U.S. 130 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976) Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
and the Attorney General has not objected to it. The constitutionality of this procedure was upheld in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
is applicable when a State or political subdivision adopts a legislative reapportionment plan. Allen v. StateSearch
-
Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
right to be represented in legislative bodies in proportion to their number in the general population. See Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
In reaching this conclusion, we do not decide the question reserved in Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
Last Term, in City of Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN's dissenting opinion in City of Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the population, but also a majority of the registered voters in two of the Plan II districts, are Negroes. See Taylor v. McKeithenSearch
-
in this Court holding a legislative apportionment or reapportionment violative of the Fifteenth Amendment. Cf. Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
U. S. 52 . The case closest to so holding is Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
standard are not relevant here. See Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
apportionments violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of identifiable racial or ethnic minorities. See Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
was aimed at this end, among others, and should be so construed and applied. See City of Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
Allen v. StateSearch
-
Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 , 393 U. S. 567 , 566 (1969). See also Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
Congress intended to adopt the concept of voting articulated in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
U.S. at 400 U. S. 390 , quoting Allen v. StateSearch
-
Board of Elections, 393 U.S. at 393 U. S. 588 (opinion of Harlan, J.). See also Georgia v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 425 U. S. 157 than potential ( i.e., proportional) power, not to a reduction of existing power. White v. RegesterSearch
-
supra at 412 U. S. 765 -766. See also Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
until recently, had been employed with remarkable success to keep Negroes from voting in the State. See Louisiana v. UnitedSearch
-
We upheld the validity of the shifted burden of proof in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
the Court has seemed to adopt each of these approaches. In the two Fifteenth Amendment redistricting cases, Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
U. S. 52 (1964), and Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
U.S. at 364 U. S. 341 . See also 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 73 -74 (Goldberg, J., dissenting). McGowan v. MarylandSearch
-
imputing an improper purpose, but that legislation is invalidated only for having such a purpose. And City of Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
may not be examined at all -- and that a statute may be invalidated only if it has an unconstitutional effect. Palmer v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 217 , 403 U. S. 224 -225 (1971), and United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
an impermissible purpose or an impermissible effect may alone be sufficient to invalidate a law. Board of Education v. AllenSearch
-
Abington School District v. SchemppSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to expand the substantive reach of that Amendment. Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
of a legislative enactment is just too ambiguous a task to be the sole tool of constitutional analysis. See Palmer v. ThompsonSearch
-
other cases, redistricting will have been constitutionally compelled by our one-person, one-vote decisions. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
See Whitcomb v. ChavisSearch
-
City of Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
Negroes. See Taylor v. McKeithenSearch
-
of the Fifteenth Amendment. Cf. Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
See Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
See Fortson v. DorseySearch
-
See City of Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
the State. See Louisiana v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial