Baker v. Carr 1962

Facts  Charles Baker was a Republican who lived in Shelby County, Tennessee who argued that although the Tennessee Constitution requires districts to be redrawn every 10 years, the state had not redistricted since 1901 and as a result of that, reduced his vote, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Joe Carr was sued due to his position as Secretary of State for Tennessee.  Baker sought an injunction prohibiting further elections, and sought the remedy of reapportionment.  The district court denied to help on the grounds that the issue of redistricting posed a political question and would therefore not be heard by the court.

Issue  Do district courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative apportionment?  What is the test for resolving whether a case presents a political question?

Decision  In a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court held that district courts have the power to determine the constitutionality of a state's voting districts.

Rationale  Baker’s constitutional right to have his vote count fairly gave him the necessary legal interest to bring the lawsuit.  The case did not involve a “political question” that prevented judicial review.  A district court could determine the constitutionality of a state's apportionment decisions without interfering with the legislature's political judgments.

Texas v. Johnson 1989

Facts  In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies.  Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law forbidding flag desecration.  He was sentenced to one year in jail and charged with a $2,000 fine.  After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.

Issue  Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

Decision  In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment.

Rationale  The Supreme Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature.  The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression does not justify prohibitions of speech.  The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.