Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
HILL, AUDITOR OF CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA, et al. v. DAVIS et al.
378 U.S. 565·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587. · Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Iowa’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause. · 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
HILL, AUDITOR OF CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA, et al. v. DAVIS et al.
No. 1079.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Ward, Reynoldson for appellants.
Robert F. Wilson for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is affirmed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, 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, should that become necessary. Since this appeal presents no question as to the correctness of the District Court’s later decision upholding the validity of the temporary reapportionment plan enacted by the Iowa General Assembly in February 1964, we do not consider or pass upon this matter.
Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587.
Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Iowa’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.