General
MARSHALL et al. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.
378 U.S. 56112 L. Ed. 2d 1036·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule. · Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MARSHALL et al. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.
No. 962.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Theodore Sachs for appellants.
Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorneys General, for Hare et al.; and Edmund E. Shepherd and R. William Rogers for Beadle et al., appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment because the Michigan system of legislative apportionment is clearly a rational one and clearly does not frustrate effective majority rule.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.