Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Wesberry v. Sanders
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 1 (1964)
When considering voting rights and elections cases, the notion of one person, one vote carries considerable appeal and power.
In Wesberry versus Sanders, we see the extent to which the supreme court supported the idea and the reasons that some justices opposed it. James Wesberry lived in Fulton County, Georgia. In the early sixties, Georgia had ten seats in the House of Representatives.
Pursuant to a state statute enacted in nineteen thirty one, the fifth congressional district, consisting of Fulton, DeKalb, and Rockdale counties, had a population of about eight hundred twenty four thousand.
The average population of the ten congressional districts was about three hundred ninety four thousand. And one district, the ninth, had only two hundred seventy two thousand residents, less than half the population of the fifth.
Wesberry and other fifth district voters sued Georgia governor Carl Sanders and state elections officials, alleging that the Georgia statute creating these districts was invalid. A three judge federal district court panel agreed that the fifth district population was grossly out of balance with the other nine congressional districts, but dismissed the complaint. The panel ruled that an apportionment challenge constituted a non justiciable political question.
Wesberry appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/wesberry-v-sanders
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/wesberry-v-sanders
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Wesberry v. Sanders
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 1 (1964)
When considering voting rights and elections cases, the notion of one person, one vote carries considerable appeal and power.
In Wesberry versus Sanders, we see the extent to which the supreme court supported the idea and the reasons that some justices opposed it. James Wesberry lived in Fulton County, Georgia. In the early sixties, Georgia had ten seats in the House of Representatives.
Pursuant to a state statute enacted in nineteen thirty one, the fifth congressional district, consisting of Fulton, DeKalb, and Rockdale counties, had a population of about eight hundred twenty four thousand.
The average population of the ten congressional districts was about three hundred ninety four thousand. And one district, the ninth, had only two hundred seventy two thousand residents, less than half the population of the fifth.
Wesberry and other fifth district voters sued Georgia governor Carl Sanders and state elections officials, alleging that the Georgia statute creating these districts was invalid. A three judge federal district court panel agreed that the fifth district population was grossly out of balance with the other nine congressional districts, but dismissed the complaint. The panel ruled that an apportionment challenge constituted a non justiciable political question.
Wesberry appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/wesberry-v-sanders
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/wesberry-v-sanders
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U86aLpipVaM/mqdefault.jpg "Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I]
European Court of Justice
Case C-362/14 (2015)
European Union regulations strictly control the transfer of personal data from data controlling entities in Europe to countries outside the EU referred to as third countries.
The regulations require third countries to ensure an adequate level of data protection.
In data protection commissioner versus Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximilian Schrems, the European Court of Justice considered whether the United States met this standard. In two thousand, the US and the EU negotiated an agreement called the Safe Harbor Principles to authorize private companies to transfer personal customer data from Europe to the states.
The European Commission issued a decision called an adequacy decision certifying that Safe Harbor guaranteed an adequate level of data protection for European citizens.
However, safe harbor allowed the American government unlimited access to personal data for national security and other purposes.
In two thousand thirteen, former government contractor Edward Snowden leaked information revealing that American security agencies engaged in extensive warrantless data collection and had direct access to the data held by major companies like Google and Facebook.
Austrian citizen, Maximilian Schrems, had a Facebook account. European Facebook users had to contract with Facebook Ireland, a Facebook subsidiary.
Facebook Ireland sent users personal data to Facebook in the US. Following the Snowden league, Shremes filed a complaint with Irelands data protection commissioner, that countrys data supervisory authority. Schrems asked the authority to prohibit Facebook Ireland from transferring his data to the US because US law didnt adequately protect personal data.
The authority rejected Schrems complaint because of safe harbor.
Schrems appealed to Irelands high court, which requested an opinion on the safe harbor decisions validity from the European Court of Justice.
The European Court invalidated the decision and referred the case back to the authority.
Thereafter, the US and EU negotiated a new agreement called Privacy Shield. The European Commission issued an adequacy decision approving Privacy Shield. Privacy Shield was similar to Safe Harbor, but created an ombudsperson to investigate data privacy complaints from European citizens.
Again, however, Privacy Shield allowed the federal government unlimited access to personal data for national security reasons.
Schrems refiled his complaint. The authority referred the case to Irelands high court, which again referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries")
