James v. Valtierra

402 U.S. 137 (1971)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

James v. Valtierra

United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 137 (1971)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD
Play video

Facts

The United States Housing Act of 1937 ultimately established loan and grant programs for states for low-rent housing developments. In 1950, California voters adopted Article XXXIV of the state constitution related to low-cost public housing. Article XXXIV required the approval of a majority of local voters before a low-rent housing project could be developed, constructed, or acquired by any state public body. Effectively, all low-income housing developments were subject to a mandatory local referendum. In San Jose, California, and San Mateo County, a number of low-cost housing proposals were defeated in referendums. Citizens of San Jose and San Mateo County who were eligible for low-cost public housing (plaintiffs) brought suit, seeking a declaration that Article XXXIV was unconstitutional because the referendum requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, among other claims. The district court found that Article XXXIV was unconstitutional. The judgment was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)

Dissent (Marshall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership