W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Simon

Supreme Court

W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Simon

370 U.S. 190, 82 S. Ct. 1234, 8 L. Ed. 2d 430, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1129

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 11, 1962

Docket836

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 370 U.S. 190 (W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Simon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Simon, 370 U.S. 190, 82 S. Ct. 1234, 8 L. Ed. 2d 430, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1129 (1962).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

On January 11, 1962, the three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint alleging violation of the Constitution of the United States by New York State’s constitutional and statutory provisions governing apportionment of State Senate and Assembly Districts. 202 F. Supp. 741. The three judges filed separate opinions, no two of which supported the judgment of dismissal on identical grounds. One opinion expressed the view that the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, want of [191]*191justiciability, and want of equity. 202 F. Supp., at 742. A second opinion expressed the view that since the apportionment was not alleged to effect a discrimination against any particular racial or religious group, but merely a geographical discrimination, jurisdiction should be exercised, but only to dismiss. 202 F. Supp., at 754. A third opinion rested on the ground that the action was not justiciable and expressed no view on the merits. 202 F. Supp., at 755.

On March 26, 1962, we held in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, that a justiciable federal constitutional cause of action is stated by a claim of arbitrary impairment of votes by means of invidiously discriminatory geographic classification. Our well-established practice of a remand for consideration in the light of a subsequent decision therefore applies. As in Scholle v. Hare, 369 U. S. 429, we believe that the court below should be the first to consider the merits of the federal constitutional claim, free from any doubts as to its justiciability and as to the merits of alleged arbitrary and invidious geographical discrimination. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr, supra.

The motions to substitute Paul R. Screvane in the place of Abe Stark, and Eugene H. Nickerson in the place of A. Holly Patterson, as parties appellee, are granted.

MR. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

On January 11, 1962, the three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint alleging violation of the Constitution of the United States by New York State’s constitutional and statutory provisions governing apportionment of State Senate and Assembly Districts. 202 F. Supp. 741. The three judges filed separate opinions, no two of which supported the judgment of dismissal on identical grounds. One opinion expressed the view that the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, want of [191]*191justiciability, and want of equity. 202 F. Supp., at 742. A second opinion expressed the view that since the apportionment was not alleged to effect a discrimination against any particular racial or religious group, but merely a geographical discrimination, jurisdiction should be exercised, but only to dismiss. 202 F. Supp., at 754. A third opinion rested on the ground that the action was not justiciable and expressed no view on the merits. 202 F. Supp., at 755.

On March 26, 1962, we held in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, that a justiciable federal constitutional cause of action is stated by a claim of arbitrary impairment of votes by means of invidiously discriminatory geographic classification. Our well-established practice of a remand for consideration in the light of a subsequent decision therefore applies. As in Scholle v. Hare, 369 U. S. 429, we believe that the court below should be the first to consider the merits of the federal constitutional claim, free from any doubts as to its justiciability and as to the merits of alleged arbitrary and invidious geographical discrimination. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr, supra.

The motions to substitute Paul R. Screvane in the place of Abe Stark, and Eugene H. Nickerson in the place of A. Holly Patterson, as parties appellee, are granted.

MR. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 U.S. 190, 82 S. Ct. 1234, 8 L. Ed. 2d 430, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-m-c-a-inc-v-simon-scotus-1962.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack