Citation network
Vieth Vs. Jubelirer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 28, 2004
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 Vieth V. JubelirerSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Vieth Et Al. V. JubelirerSearch
-
discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist. They would therefore overrule Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
question is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question. Baker v. CarrSearch
-
the predominant intent test is applied to the challenged district in which the plaintiffs voted, see, e.g., Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
sorting permissible districting classifications from impermissible ones. Politics is a different matter. Gaffney v. CummingsSearch
-
to our intervention. In this case, the plurality convincingly demonstrates that the standards proposed in Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
they are not so compelling that they require the Court now to bar all future partisan gerrymandering claims. Baker v. CarrSearch
-
That analysis allows a pragmatic or functional assessment that accords some latitude to the States. See, e.g., Eu v. SanSearch
-
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Vieth v. JubelirerSearch
-
Opinion of Scalia, J. Vieth V. JubelirerSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1580 Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey, Appellants V. RobertSearch
-
In Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
but it declined to dismiss the apportionment claim as to other defendants. See Vieth v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Vieth I) . On trial of the apportionment claim, the District Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs. See Vieth v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
and rejecting the political gerrymandering claim for the reasons previously assigned in Vieth I . Vieth v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
to control political gerrymandering, see Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
is entrusted to one of the political branches or involves no judicially enforceable rights. See, e.g. , Nixon v. UnitedSearch
-
Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. OregonSearch
-
In Baker v. CarrSearch
-
of the Constitution is not whatever judges choose to do, see Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
cf. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. AllianceSearch
-
or even whatever Congress chooses to assign them, see Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. WatermanSearch
-
rational, and based upon reasoned distinctions. Over the dissent of three Justices, the Court held in Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
extreme partisan discrimination, bizarrely shaped districts, and disproportionate results. See, e.g. , Session v. PerrySearch
-
Lear v. MillerSearch
-
Martinez v. BushSearch
-
must be discernible and manageable because it has been borrowed from our racial gerrymandering cases. See Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Our one-person, one-vote cases, see Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
impeachments. See Nixon v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. See also Bush v. VeraSearch
-
all consideration of political affiliation in hiring for non-policy-level government jobs. What cases such as Elrod v. BurnsSearch
-
a newly constructed standard loosely based in form on our Title VII cases, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSearch
-
We think not. v. JusticeSearch
-
advisory opinions (on a theory we could not yet imagine) would not violate the separation of powers. In Gilligan v. MorganSearch
-
the lower courts try their hand at regulating the military before we declared it impossible. Most recently, in Nixon v. UnitedSearch
-
all right. The only cases Justice Kennedy cites in defense of his never-say-never approach are Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Court there refrained from spelling out the equal-protection standard. (It did so a mere two years later in Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
stare decisis are at their weakest in that field, where our mistakes cannot be corrected by Congress. See Payne v. TennesseeSearch
-
Id., at 827 (quoting Smith v. AllwrightSearch
-
Footnote 5 See Republican Party of North Carolina v. MartinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial