United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey

PETITIONER:United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc.
LOCATION:Village of Arlington Heights

DOCKET NO.: 75-104
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 430 US 144 (1977)
ARGUED: Oct 06, 1976
DECIDED: Mar 01, 1977

George D. Zuckerman – Argued the cause the for respondents Carey et al
Louis H. Pollak – Argued the cause for the respondents NAACP et al
Nathan Lewin – Argued the cause for the petitioners
Robert H. Bork – Argued the cause for the United States

Facts of the case

Congress provided in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that reapportionment plans of several states were to be submitted to the U.S. attorney general or the District Court of the District of Columbia for approval. Several districts in New York were restructured to create districts with a minimum nonwhite majority of 65 percent. A Hasidic Jewish community was split in two by the reapportionment. The community claimed that the plan violated their constitutional rights because the districts had been assigned solely on a racial basis.


Did the reapportionment plan violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community?

Media for United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – October 06, 1976 in United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – March 01, 1977 in United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in 75-104, United Jewish Organizations Williamsburg against Kerry, the Governor of New York will be announced by Mr. Justice White.

Byron R. White:

This case is here from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

It involves a challenge to a New York reapportionment in so far as that statute applied to Kings County.

The challenge was and is that the — that the — that the State impermissibly used racial criteria in drawing certain district lines in the — in the county.

The Court of Appeals rejected that challenge and we affirm that judgment by both of seven to one.

Mr. Justice Marshall takes no part in this case and Chief Justices filed the dissenting opinion.

I have filed an opinion which gives two essentially independent reasons for the — for the judgment.

Neither reason commands a majority to the Court but there are five justices who joined one or the — joined one or the other.

The first reason is that what the State did was authorized by the Voting Rights Act.

The second reason is that without any help in the Voting Rights Act, what New York did violated neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment.

In the first reason, Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Stevens joined me.

And in the second reason, Mr. Justice Regnquist and Mr. Justice Stevens, in any event the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Brennan has filed a concurring opinion.

Mr. Justice Stewart has filed a — an opinion concurring the judgment and he is joined by Mr. Justice Powell.

As I say, the Chief Justice has filed the same opinion.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Justice White.