Colegrove v. Green

328 U.S. 549, 66 S. Ct. 1198, 90 L. Ed. 1432, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2179
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 28, 1946·No. 804·Published·Cited by 398 cases

Opinions

Me. Justice Frankfurter

announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton concur.

This case is appropriately here, under § 266 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 380, on direct review of a judgment of the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, composed of three judges, dismissing the complaint of the appellants. These are three qualified voters in Illinois districts which have much larger populations than other Illinois Congressional districts. They brought this suit against the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Auditor of the State of Illinois, as members ex officio of the Illinois Primary Certifying Board, to restrain them, in effect, from taking proceedings for an election in November 1946, under the provisions of Illinois law governing Congressional districts. Illinois Laws of 1901, p. 3. Formally, the appellants asked for a decree, with its incidental relief, § 274 (d) Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 400, declaring these provisions to be invalid because they violated various provisions of the United States Constitution and § 3 of the Reapportionment Act of August 8, 1911, 37 Stat. 13, as amended, 2 U. S. C. § 2a, in that by reason of subsequent changes in population the Congressional districts for the election of Representatives in the Congress created by the Illinois Laws of 1901 (111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 46 (1945) §§ 154-56) lacked compactness of terri[551] tory and approximate equality of population. The District Court, feeling bound by this Court’s opinion in Wood v. Broom, 287 U. S. 1, dismissed the complaint. 64 F. Supp. 632.

The District Court was clearly right in deeming itself bound by Wood v. Broom, supra, and we could also dispose of this case on the authority of Wood v. Broom. The legal merits of this controversy were settled in that case, inasmuch as it held that the Reapportionment Act of June 18, 1929, 46 Stat. 21, as amended, 2 U. S. C. § 2 (a), has no requirements “as to the compactness, contiguity and equality in population of districts.” 287 U. S. at 8. The Act of 1929 still governs the districting for the election of Representatives. It must be remembered that not only was the legislative history of the matter fully considered in Wood v. Broom, but the question had been elaborately before the Court in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, Koenig v. Flynn, 285 U. S. 375, and Carroll v. Becker, 285 U. S. 380, argued a few months before Wood v. Broom was decided. Nothing has now been adduced to lead us to overrule what this Court found to be the requirements under the Act of 1929, the more so since seven Congressional elections have been held under the Act of 1929 as construed by this Court. No manifestation has been shown by Congress even to question the correctness of that which seemed compelling to this Court in enforcing the will of Congress in Wood v. Broom.

But we also agree with the four Justices (Brandéis, Stone, Roberts, and Cardozo, JJ.) who were of opinion that the bill in Wood v. Broom, supra, should be “dismissed for want of equity.” To be sure, the present complaint, unlike the bill in Wood v. Broom, was brought under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act which, not having been enacted until 1934, was not available at the time of Wood v. Broom. But that Act merely gave the federal courts competence to make a declaration of rights even though [552] no decree of enforcement be immediately asked. It merely permitted a freer movement of the federal courts within the recognized confines of the scope of equity. The Declaratory Judgment Act “only provided a new form of procedure for the adjudication of rights in conformity” with “established equitable principles.” Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 300. And so, the test for determining whether a federal court has authority to make a declaration such as is here asked, is whether the controversy “would be justiciable in this Court if presented in a suit for injunction . . .” Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 262.

We are of opinion that the appellants ask of this Court what is beyond its competence to grant. This is one of those demands on judicial power which cannot be met by verbal fencing about “jurisdiction.” It must be resolved by considerations on the basis of which this Court, from time to time, has refused to intervene in controversies. It has refused to do so because due regard for the effective working of our Government revealed this issue to be of a peculiarly political nature and therefore not meet for judicial determination.

This is not an action to recover for damage because of the discriminatory exclusion of a plaintiff from rights enjoyed by other citizens. The basis for the suit is not a private wrong, but a wrong suffered by Illinois as a polity. Compare Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 and Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, with Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475. In effect this is an appeal to the federal courts to reconstruct the electoral process of Illinois in order that it may be adequately represented in the councils of the Nation. Because the Illinois legislature has failed to revise its Congressional Representative districts in order to reflect great changes, during more than a generation, in the distribution of its population, we are asked to do this, as it were, for Illinois.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 66 S. Ct. 1198, 90 L. Ed. 1432, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2179 (1946).

328 U.S. 549 (Colegrove v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

George v. Haslam
112 F. Supp. 3d 700 (M.D. Tennessee, 2015)
Jesus Gonzalez v. State of Arizona
677 F.3d 383 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Page v. Tri-City Healthcare District
860 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (S.D. California, 2012)
Maestas v. Hall
2012 NMSC 006 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2012)
Vandermost v. Bowen
269 P.3d 446 (California Supreme Court, 2012)
Mauldin v. Branch
866 So. 2d 429 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2003)
People Ex Rel. Salazar v. Davidson
79 P.3d 1221 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2003)
Deem v. Manchin
188 F. Supp. 2d 651 (N.D. West Virginia, 2002)
Igartua De La Rosa v. United States
113 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Puerto Rico, 2000)
Kelley v. Bennett
96 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (M.D. Alabama, 2000)
Adams v. Clinton
90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (District of Columbia, 2000)
In Re Initiative Petition No. 364
1996 OK 129 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1996)
Fairley v. Forrest County, Miss.
814 F. Supp. 1327 (S.D. Mississippi, 1993)
Huntsville Utility District of Scott County v. General Trust Co.
839 S.W.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1992)
NAT. ADVERTISING CO. v. City of Bridgeton
626 F. Supp. 837 (E.D. Missouri, 1985)
City of Fresno v. Superior Court
156 Cal. App. 3d 1137 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)