| Department of Commerce v. Montana | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 4, 1992 Decided March 31, 1992 | |
| Full case name | United States Department of Commerce et al. v. Montana et al. |
| Citations | 503 U.S. 442 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Summary judgment for Montana, United States District Court for the District of Montana |
| Holding | |
| Congress exercised its apportionment authority within the limits dictated by the Constitution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const., art. I, § 2. | |
Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the reapportionment of congressional seats following the 1990 United States Census. On appeal from the United States Department of Commerce, a unanimous court reversed the judgment of the District Court holding that Congress acted within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution when it applied the method of equal proportions for determining representation in the House of Representatives.
Department of Commerce v. Montana was a direct challenge to an Act of Congress passed in 1941 to automatically apply the equal proportions method when reapportioning seats according to census figures. In this case, the application of the method of equal proportions to the 1990 census caused 8 States to gain a total of 19 additional seats in the House of Representatives and 13 States to lose an equal number.[1] Montana was one of those States and the method effectively cut its delegation in half. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on short notice because the new numbers were set to take effect later that year.
While the State maintained that the method violated precedent set by Wesberry v. Sanders and the “one man, one vote” approach to equal representation, the Supreme Court held that Congress was acting in good faith and “common sense” when applying the method. In the opinion of the Court, the discrepancy in the number of people represented by Montana’s proposed new congressional district relative to those in other states was an expected and acceptable consequence of a federal government based on the Great Compromise which called for proportional representation in Congress. The decision effectively sanctioned continued use of the equal proportions method by Congress.
See also
editReferences
editExternal links
editCategory:United States electoral redistricting case law Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:1992 in law