*1 al. GOMILLION OF LIGHTFOOT, MAYOR et TUSKEGEE, et al. Argued 18-19,
No. 32. October 1960. Decided November Gray argued D. L. Fred and Robert cause Carter petitioners. With them on brief Arthur D. Shores. States, for the United argued the cause
Philip Elman *2 the him on curiae, With reversal. urging amicus as Rankin, Attorney Assistant General were Solicitor brief Greene, Friedman, H. Harold M. Tyler, Daniel General Flannery, Jr. and J. Harold D. Owen Robert respondents. for argued the cause James J. Carter Harry Hill, B. Jr. and Thomas him on the brief were With Raymon. D. of the opinion delivered the Frankfurter
Mr. Justice Court. under challenges validity,
This litigation 140, passed Act No. Constitution, of Local United States redefining the in 1957, Alabama Legislature of Negro Tuskegee. Petitioners, City of the of boundaries redis- the time this were, Alabama who at citizens of Tuskegee, City of the tricting measure, residents for District Court an action United States brought declaratory judg- for a District of Alabama the Middle injunc- for an and unconstitutional, that Act 140 is ment and Tuskegee Mayor and officers of tion to restrain enforcing from Alabama, County, the officials of Macon Negroes similarly them other situated. against the Act statute, Petitioners’ claim is that enforcement square from shape Tuskegee which alters the twenty-eight-sided figure, will constitute dis- uncouth of the Due Process against them violation crimination of the Fourteenth Amend- Equal Protection Clauses right deny to the Constitution and will them the ment vote defiance of the Fifteenth Amendment. for respondents moved dismissal of the action granted a claim which relief could be
failure to state District jurisdiction for lack of Court. The no granted motion, stating, “This Court has court power change no supervision over, control no over, duly any municipal corporations fixed boundaries and elected legislative body, acting convened for the people the State of Alabama.” 167 F. Supp. 405, 410. appeal, On of Appeals the Court for the Circuit, Fifth judge one judgment, dissenting. affirmed 270 F. 2d 594. brought questions We the case here since serious raised concerning were of a State over its municipalities relation to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. S.U.
At stage litigation this we are not concerned with the truth of the allegations, is, the ability peti- tioners to sustain their allegations by proof. The sole question is allegations whether the entitle them to make good on their claim they are being rights denied *3 under the States United Constitution. The complaint, charging that Act is 140 a device Negro to disenfranchise citizens, alleges the following facts: Prior to Act 140 the City of Tuskegee square in shape; the Act trans- formed it into a strangely irregular twenty-eight-sided figure as indicated in the diagram appended to this opinion. The essential inevitable effect of this redefini- tion of Tuskegee’s boundaries is to remove from city all save four or five of its 400 Negro voters while not single white removing voter or resident. The result of deprive the Act to Negro petitioners is discriminatorily of of in Tuskegee, the benefits residence including, inter alia, right municipal to vote in elections.
These if allegations, abundantly proven, would estab- lish that Act 140 an ordinary was not geographic redis- tricting measure even within familiar abuses gerry- If mandering. these allegations a trial remained or uncontradicted unqualified, the conclusion would be irresistible, practical tantamount all purposes to a mathematical demonstration, legislation that the solely is concerned with segregating white and colored by voters fencing Negro out of deprive citizens town so as to them of their pre-existing municipal vote. way in the appreciate
It to what stands is difficult invalid this inevitable effect adjudging having a statute judge, must by this Court principles which light spe- howsoever judged, that, statutes uniformly has obviously against colored discriminate ciously defined, sophisti- nullifies Amendment “The citizens. [Fifteenth] of discrimination.” simple-minded as modes cated well as Wilson, 268, 275. U. S. Lane alleges a claim of racial discrim- complaint amply The have never respondents this claim the Against ination. any argument, or oral either in their brief suggested, Act 140 function which municipal countervailing respondents generali- invoke serve. designed power unlimited, unrestricted expressing ties State's — establish, States Constitution —to is, by the United expansion or destroy, reorganize contraction or and other subdivisions, counties, wit, cities, freely impor- recognize the breadth and local units. We To political power. State's aspect tance this into an absolute is misconceive exalt this leading case reach and rule this Court’s decisions cases Pittsburgh, 161, and related Hunter v. upon by respondents. relied citizens of involved claim The Hunter case Assembly Pennsylvania, the General Allegheny, *4 a of their that not direct consolidation State could a objection majority city Pittsburgh over the Al- alleged that while It was Allegheny voters. improvements, made numerous civic legheny already had to undertake such planning then Pittsburgh was annexation would therefore and that improvements, on Allegheny tax burden residents. greatly increase the implied no (1) held was that there is All that the case city a and its residents that their contract between solely city, for the benefit of that spent will be taxes is not de- municipality a of one citizen (2) prived property process by being without due of law subjected to increased tax a burdens as result of the city consolidation of his with cases, another. Related upon which the respondents rely, also such as Trenton v. Jersey, 182; New Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Co., Oil S. 394; County Albany and Laramie County, 92 U. S. are far They off the mark. authority are only for no principle constitu- tionally protected obligation contractual arises between governmental State its subordinate solely entities as a relationship. result their
In short, the cases that have come before this Court regarding legislation by dealing politi- States with their cal subdivisions (1) fall into two classes: those which is it claimed that State, by virtue prohibition of the against impairment obligation I, (Art. contract 10)§ and of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, power without extinguish, or alter of, an existing boundaries municipality; (2) which it is power claimed the State has no change identity aof municipality whereby pre-exist- of a citizens ing suffer municipality disadvantage. serious economic
Neither of these claims is supported specific by such limitation as confines the under States the Fifteenth Amendment. As to first it category, is obvious that municipalities clearly the creation of — political act —does not come within conception contract the Dartmouth College under case. Wheat. second, to the if principle clearly emerges As one from the numerous decisions of this Court with dealing it is taxation that the Due Process Clause no im- affords munity against inequalities mere burdens, tax nor does protection against afford their increase as an indirect consequence of a State’s exercise of its powers.
Particularly with claims dealing pro- under broad Constitution, visions which derive content *5 344 exclusion, of inclusion process
interpretive
by
on
qualified
based
generalizations,
imperative that
must
them,
rise to
gave
that
the concrete situations
of variant con-
disregard
of context
applied
be
out
seemingly
reading
a correct
trolling
Thus,
facts.
cases is not
of Hunter and kindred
unconfined dicta
every con-
manipulate in
plenary power to
the State has
the affairs
purpose,
way,
every
conceivable
ceivable
the State’s
municipal
but rather
corporations,
by
particular prohibitions
authority is unrestrained
in those cases.
considered
the Constitution
legis
intimates that
state
opinion
Hunter
itself
disposition
even as to the
may
omnipotent
not be
lature
municipal corporations,
owned
types
property
some
other
in this
cases
Court
S.,
Further,
207
at 178-181.
U.
municipality,
a State to abolish
have refused to allow
city,
another
merge
or
it with
boundaries,
alter its
or
city
creditors of the old
some
preserving to the
without
them.
of debts owed
for the collection
effective recourse
Watson,
Angelo,
646;
167
Mobile v.
San
U. S.
Shapleigh v.
Beckwith,
v.
S.
289;
S.
Mount Pleasant
U.
U.
Pensacola,
514; Broughton
example,
“It was cases, those as it is argued this, that such alteration or destruction of the subordinate governmental proper divisions was a legis- exercise of power, lative to which creditors had to submit. The argument did not It prevail. answered, as we it, now answer power, such though extensive it is, by is met and provision overcome of the Con- stitution of the United States which forbids a State from passing any law impairing obligation of . . contracts. .” 200 at 253-254. S.,U.
If all this in regard is so to the protec- constitutional contracts, tion of it should be equally para- true that, phrase, power, such extensive though is, is met and by overcome the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitu- tion of the States, which forbids a United State from any passing law which deprives of citizen his vote because of his race. The opposite conclusion, urged upon us would respondents, sanction the achievement any impairment voting rights long whatever so garb as it was cloaked of the realignment politi- cal “It guaranties subdivisions. inconceivable that embedded Constitution of the United may States manipulated thus be out of existence.” Frost & Frost Trucking Co. California, v. Railroad Commission S. 594. of this barrier to trial find another respondents
The Green, In that case Colegrove case in arrange governing on an Illinois law passed Court districts within State. congressional ment between disparity population rested complaint the effectiveness which rendered the different districts far than in some districts less individual’s vote each solely through shifts *7 disparity pass This to others. came organized Illinois 1901, in between when population complaint when the was congressional districts, and were held period this entire elections lodged. During in The Court scheme devised 1901. districting under ground on the complaint affirmed the dismissal adjudication.* for The subject a not meet presented it in which must be case, stage facts this at this decisive wholly are different from the considera proved, taken as controlling Colegrove. tions found a complaint discriminatory That case involved appellants apportionment congressional districts. The a Colegrove complained only strength of the dilution legislative as a a of their votes result inaction over years. The many petitioners complain here course of deprives them of their legislative that affirmative action consequent advantages and the the ballot votes singles legislature readily affords. When thus out minority special segment isolated racial discrim- inatory treatment, Fifteenth violates the Amendment. In involving unequal weight voting no case distribution before that has come the Court decision sanction did whereby approval given differentiation on racial lines unequivocal solely to withdrawal the vote from colored Apart else, citizens. from all these considerations lift this Colegrove case, Dwight after the *Soon decision Governor H. message legislature his of Illinois in 1947 biennial to the Green recom- reapportionment. legislature immediately responded, mended a 1947, p. 879, again. Ill. in 1951 Sess. Laws redistricted Ill. Sess. 1951, p. Laws
controversy out of the “political” so-called arena and into sphere litigation. conventional of constitutional
In sum, remarked, as Mr. dealing Justice Holmes when Herndon, with a related situation, Nixon v. S.U. 536, 540, “Of petition course the political action,” concerns objection but “The subject matter of the suit play is is little more than a words.” A statute alleged which have worked unconstitutional deprivations petitioners’ rights to attack is not immune simply because employed by the mechanism the legisla- ture is a municipal redefinition of boundaries. According the allegations here made, Legislature Alabama has merely Tuskegee city redrawn the with limits inci- dental inconvenience to the it is more petitioners; accurate say deprived has petitioners municipal that it consequent franchise rights and to it has that end incidentally city’s changed the in form boundaries. While this is merely redefining act bounds, metes and if the allegations inescapable are established, human effect *8 of this essay geometry despoil and geography is to citizens, colored colored of their there- citizens, enjoyed tofore voting Colegrove That was rights. v. Green. power wholly
When State exercises within the domain interest, judicial state is insulated from federal review. But such insulation not carried over when state power is used as an circumventing instrument federally protected right. principle many This had has applications. It has been long recognized cases which prohibited have from exploiting a power acknowl- edged be absolute an isolated to justify context imposition anof “unconstitutional condition.” What Court has said cases is equally applicable those here, viz., generally may that “Acts lawful become unlawful accomplish when done to an end, unlawful United States Co., Reading v. 226 U. 324, 357, S. a constitutional be by way cannot used condition to attain Telegraph result.” Union Co. unconstitutional Western Foster, are petitioners v. 247 U. 114. The entitled 105, S. prove allegations at trial. their Dis- principal reasons,
For these conclusions of Appeals clearly are erroneous Court and the Court trict , the decision must be below DDReversed. joining the opinion MR. Justice while Douglas, Green, Colegrove Court, to the dissents adheres Peters, 339 and South v. U. S. 276. S. TO THE APPENDIX OPINION OF COURT. Showing Tuskegee, Alabama, After Act Chart Before *9 (The square City prior comprised the to entire area of the Act figure square repre- irregular 140. The black-bordered within the city.) post-enactment sents the Whittaker, concurring.
Mr. Justice I in judgment, concur the Court’s but not whole opinion. of its It seems to me that should decision Amendment, be rested not on the Fifteenth rather on but Equal Protection Clause the Fourteenth Amend- ment I am to Constitution. doubtful that the aver- present purposes ments of the taken for be to complaint, by Act to true, purpose abridge show a No. 140 petitioners’ “right vote,” ... the Fifteenth Amendment sense. “right It seems to me ... guar- vote” that is by the anteed Fifteenth Amendment but same right enjoyed by as is all to vote others within the same political election ward other precinct, And, or division. right inasmuch as no one has the in a vote division, or in a local concerning election an area reside, which he does not it would seem to follow that right one’s abridged by to vote Division A is not redistricting that his B places residence Division he if enjoys there voting the same as all in that privileges others Division, though redistricting even was done purpose placing for the a racial group citizens in Division B than A. rather
itBut does seem clear to me accomplishment purpose State’s use the phrase Court’s “fencing —to —of Negro of” A citizens out Division B is into Division an unlawful segregation races of citizens, violation Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend- ment, Education, Brown v. Board 483; Cooper S.U. Aaron, 1; stated, I and, as would think the decision should be rested on that inci- ground which,— clearly dentally, just would involve, as the cited cases Colegrove problem. did not involve,