Kusper et al. v. Pontikes
414 U.S. 51 · No. 71-1631 · 1973 term · Burger Court
Decided Nov 19, 1973 · argued Oct 9, 1973
Civil rights · Residency requirements: durational, plus discrimination against nonresidents
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Potter Stewart
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Kusper et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Illinois Northern U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Kusper et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1973 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Potter StewartWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Harry BlackmunWrote a dissent
William RehnquistWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Kusper et al.State (Illinois)
- Respondent
- PontikesVoter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (association)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level); Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Nov 19, 1973DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Kusper et al. lost.
- Oct 9, 1973ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Illinois Northern U.S. District Court, with a dissent.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
21 other argued cases since 1946 on residency requirements: durational, plus discrimination against nonresidents, newest first.
- Rita L. Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Brenda Roe and Anna Doe etc.Landmark · Freedom of movement526 U.S. 489May 17, 1999 · 526 U.S. 489Civil rightsLandmark · Freedom of movement7–27–2 band
- Barnard, Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners of the Virgin Islands v. Thorstenn et al.489 U.S. 546Mar 6, 1989 · 489 U.S. 546Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Supreme Court of Virginia et al. v. Friedman487 U.S. 59Jun 20, 1988 · 487 U.S. 59Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Frazier v. Heebe, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, et al.482 U.S. 641Jun 19, 1987 · 482 U.S. 641Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez et al.476 U.S. 898Jun 16, 1986 · 476 U.S. 898Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Hooper et al. v. Bernalillo County Assessor472 U.S. 612Jun 24, 1985 · 472 U.S. 612Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper470 U.S. 274Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 274Civil rights8–18–1 band
- United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden et al.465 U.S. 208Feb 21, 1984 · 465 U.S. 208Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Martinez, As Next Friend of Morales v. Bynum, Texas Commissioner of Education, et al.461 U.S. 321May 2, 1983 · 461 U.S. 321Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Zobel et ux. v. Williams, Commissioner of Revenue of Alaska, et al.457 U.S. 55Jun 14, 1982 · 457 U.S. 55Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Hicklin et al. v. Orbeck, Commissioner, Department of Labor of Alaska, et al.437 U.S. 518Jun 22, 1978 · 437 U.S. 518Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Baldwin et al. v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana et al.436 U.S. 371May 23, 1978 · 436 U.S. 371Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Elkins, President, University of Maryland v. Moreno et al.435 U.S. 647Apr 19, 1978 · 435 U.S. 647Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport District et al.431 U.S. 159May 16, 1977 · 431 U.S. 159Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Sosna v. Iowa et al.419 U.S. 393Jan 14, 1975 · 419 U.S. 393Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Memorial Hospital et al. v. Maricopa County et al.415 U.S. 250Feb 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 250Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Rosario et al. v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.410 U.S. 752Mar 21, 1973 · 410 U.S. 752Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Carter et al. v. Stanton, Director, Marion County Department of Public Welfare, et al.405 U.S. 669Apr 3, 1972 · 405 U.S. 669Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
- Dunn, Governor of Tennessee, et al. v. Blumstein405 U.S. 330Mar 21, 1972 · 405 U.S. 330Civil rights6–18–1 band
- Hall et ux. v. Beals, Clerk and Recorder of El Paso County, et al.396 U.S. 45Nov 24, 1969 · 396 U.S. 45Civil rights6–27–2 band
- Toomer et al. v. Witsell et al.334 U.S. 385Jun 7, 1948 · 334 U.S. 385Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.