Baker v. Carr (1962)
A Tennessee politician appealed to the court because the congressional districts of his state had not been redrawn since the year 1901, when a state law required reapportionment every 10 years. The defendants in the case tried, rather than justify the lack of redistricting, to argue that the Supreme Court had no right to intervene in a political issue such as congressional redistricting. However, the Warren court ruled that there had been instances in the past when the Supreme Court had intervened in state affairs when they pertained to constitutionality, as the court believed they did in this case. therefore, the court proved that it had the right to influence legislative appointment, albeit in a roundabout way.
A Tennessee politician appealed to the court because the congressional districts of his state had not been redrawn since the year 1901, when a state law required reapportionment every 10 years. The defendants in the case tried, rather than justify the lack of redistricting, to argue that the Supreme Court had no right to intervene in a political issue such as congressional redistricting. However, the Warren court ruled that there had been instances in the past when the Supreme Court had intervened in state affairs when they pertained to constitutionality, as the court believed they did in this case. therefore, the court proved that it had the right to influence legislative appointment, albeit in a roundabout way.