A state violates the Fifteenth Amendment when it constructs boundary lines between electoral districts for the purpose of denying equal representation to African Americans. The Court believed that the irregularly shaped district was drawn with only one purpose in mind: to deprive blacks of political power. United States Supreme Court 418 U.S. 717 (1974) Facts.
Conclusion . The effect of the new district was to exclude essentially all blacks from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites lived.

Bradley (1973) _, the Court ruled that an inter-district desegregation plan in the city of Detroit was impermissible and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. An act of the Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape with a twenty-eight sided figure. Did federal courts have the authority to impose a multi-district desegregation plan on schools outside the Detroit area? v. Bradley et al., and No. MILLIKEN v. BRADLEY(1974) No. Summary of Milliken v. Bradley 1974 A class action suit was filed in August 1970, by parents of students in the Detroit, Michigan school system and the Detroit Branch of the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People (NAACP) against the Michigan State Board of Education and various other state officials of the state of Michigan. Milliken v. Bradley. Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent's allowance for her husband.

New content will be added above the current area of focus upon selection The unanimous Court held that the Alabama legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Did the redrawing of Tuskegee's electoral district boundaries violate the Fifteenth Amendment?

The NAACP sought a plan to end segregation in the schools. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support.

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), this Court held … Milliken v. Bradley by Thurgood Marshall Dissenting Opinion.
73-436, Grosse Pointe Public School System v. Bradley et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

Court Documents; Case Syllabus: Opinion of the Court: Concurring Opinion Stewart: Dissenting Opinions Douglas White Marshall: MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE join, dissenting. 73-435, Allen Park Public Schools et al. Bradley and Grosse Pointe Public School System v. Bradley. Potter Stewart Stewart. Justice Frankfurter admitted that states are insulated from judicial review when they exercise power "wholly within the domain of state interest." William O. Douglas Douglas. Statement of the Facts: A branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) brought a class action, claiming that the Detroit public school system is segregated because of State and local policies. Question. An act of the Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape with a twenty-eight sided figure. 73-434 Argued: February 27, 1974 Decided: July 25, 1974 [ Footnote * ] Together with No. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), that held that racial segregation was impermissible in public school systems, federal district courts were faced with imposing remedial measures on offending school districts. Sort: by seniority; by ideology << decision 1 of 1 >> 5–4 decision for Milliken majority opinion by Warren E. Burger. However, in this case, Alabama's representatives were unable to identify "any countervailing municipal function" the act was designed to serve. Milliken v. Bradley Case Brief.