Southwest State Case
Federal Republic of Germany Federal Constitutional Court
1 BVerfGE 14 (1951)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Following the Second World War, the Allied Powers restructured certain states in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). In particular, the Allied Powers divided the historic states of Baden and Wurttemberg from two states into three states: Baden, Baden-Wurttemberg, and Wurttemberg-Hohenzollern. When West Germany enacted the Basic Law of Germany in 1949, the newly created states became co-equal states. Article 118 of the German Constitution provided that the new boundaries of these three states may be effected by agreement among the three states. Article 118 also provided that if the states failed to reach agreement, the federal government would provide for a referendum on the reorganization. The three states failed to reach agreement on the reorganization, and the federal legislature of West Germany passed two reorganization laws. The two reorganization laws were conditional on a popular referendum within the affected region. The first law extended the terms of the legislatures of Baden and Wurttemberg-Hohenzollern; the second law provided the terms for a referendum on whether to divide the three states into two states. The state of Baden challenged this reorganization, arguing the reorganization was unconstitutional despite the Basic Law’s authorization of the reorganization by popular referendum.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.