Connection lost
Server error
Baker v. Carr Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Tennessee voters sued over a 60-year-old, malapportioned legislative map that diluted their votes. The Supreme Court held that challenges to legislative apportionment under the Equal Protection Clause are justiciable in federal court and are not non-justiciable “political questions.”
Legal Significance: This landmark decision established that claims of legislative malapportionment are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, dismantling the political question doctrine as a bar to such suits and paving the way for the “one person, one vote” principle.
Baker v. Carr Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Appellants were qualified voters in Tennessee who alleged that the state’s legislative apportionment scheme was unconstitutional. The Tennessee Constitution required that legislative districts be reapportioned every ten years based on the number of qualified voters. However, the last apportionment had occurred in 1901. Over the subsequent 60 years, significant population shifts occurred, with substantial growth in urban and suburban areas relative to rural areas. The 1901 apportionment statute remained in effect, resulting in severe malapportionment. This disparity caused a “debasement” of the appellants’ votes, as voters in heavily populated urban counties had significantly less per capita representation in the state legislature than voters in sparsely populated rural counties. The appellants filed suit against state election officials, claiming this unequal apportionment denied them the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the claim presented a non-justiciable political question.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a claim that a state’s legislative apportionment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment present a non-justiciable political question?
Yes, the claim is justiciable. The Court held that the appellants stated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offi
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a claim that a state’s legislative apportionment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment present a non-justiciable political question?
Conclusion
By holding that legislative apportionment challenges are justiciable, *Baker v. Carr* fundamentally Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Legal Rule
A claim that a state's legislative apportionment scheme violates the Equal Protection Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariat
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis focused on defining the contours of the political question Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu f
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: Challenges to state legislative apportionment under the Equal Protection Clause
