Growe v. Emison
United States Supreme Court
507 U.S. 25 (1993)
- Written by Philip Glass, JD
Facts
Minnesota voters (plaintiffs) filed suit in state court in January 1991, alleging unconstitutional districting. Another set of plaintiffs brought suit in federal court on similar though not identical claims in March 1991. The two causes of action relied on different laws. Minnesota's legislature developed a redistricting scheme by May, which then underwent corrections. The Minnesota legislature planned to finalize the scheme in January 1992. Although the legislature ratified the scheme, the Minnesota Governor vetoed it. A Special Redistricting Panel, created by the Minnesota Supreme Court, also developed a reapportionment scheme. The district court enjoined the Special Redistricting Panel's plan. The state court pushed through a final order authorizing its scheme on January 30. However, the state court heard the proposed schemes of both parties to the cause of action on February 17. The district court thereafter enjoined both the Minnesota judiciary's and legislature's redistricting schemes. The Court heard this appeal contesting the district court's injunction and redistricting scheme.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
