United Jewish Organizations v. Carey
Significance, Points Of Affirmation, Impact, Further Readings
United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc.
Carey, Governor of New York, et al.
The redistricting plan of 1974 for portions of Kings County, New York, would negate the effectiveness of the Hasidic Jew vote. The petitioner claimed that the sole purpose of the redistricting was to achieve a racial quota, and the community was assigned to voting districts solely by racial standards. They claimed this violated their rights under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
George D. Zuckerman, Assistant Attorney General of New York
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Warren E. Burger (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Date of Decision
1 March 1977
The reapportionment plan was valid under the U.S. Constitution and did not violate the constitutional rights of the Hasidic Jews.
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
- Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975).
- Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976).
- Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).
- United States v. Calandra - Significance, Exclusionary Rule's Prime Purpose, Better For Some Guilty People To Go Free
- U.S. v. Snepp Appeal: 1980 - Snepp Sells Decent Interval, Suggestions For Further Reading
- United Jewish Organizations v. Carey - Further Readings
- United Jewish Organizations v. Carey - Significance
- United Jewish Organizations v. Carey - Points Of Affirmation
- United Jewish Organizations v. Carey - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias