Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United Jewish Organizations Of Williamsburgh, Inc., Et Al. v. Carey, Governor Of New York, Et Al.

• 1976 • 430 U.S. 144 • Burger Court
The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey case in 1976 revolved around the issue of redistricting and whether it violated the Voting Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The state of New York had redrawn its legislative districts to increase minority representation, which resulted in a decrease in white majority districts - one such district was predominantly inhabited by Hasidic Jews who claimed this act diluted their voting power. The Supreme...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1976
Docket: 75-104
430 U.S. 144
97 S. Ct. 996
51 L. Ed. 2d 229
1977 U.S. LEXIS 51
Argued: Oct 06, 1976

United Jewish Organizations Of Williamsburgh, Inc., Et Al. v. Carey, Governor Of New York, Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey case in 1976 revolved around the issue of redistricting and whether it violated the Voting Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The state of New York had redrawn its legislative districts to increase minority representation, which resulted in a decrease in white majority districts - one such district was predominantly inhabited by Hasidic Jews who claimed this act diluted their voting power. The Supreme Court ruled that although race was taken into account during redistricting, it did not violate either law as long as there wasn't an intent to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities. It concluded that enhancing minority groups' chances to participate effectively in political process through creating more balanced voter distribution didn't constitute unconstitutional discrimination against white voters.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to uphold New York State's redistricting plan was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on racial gerrymandering. He contended that by approving a district map designed to increase minority representation in state legislature, the court had effectively endorsed race-based discrimination against white voters in those districts. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to provide clear guidelines on when and how states could use race as a factor in drawing legislative boundaries without violating equal protection rights under Fourteenth Amendment of U.S Constitution.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: Mar 01, 1977
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms