Coleman v. Miller

Supreme Court of the United States · 1939 · Constitutional Law

307 U.S. 433 (1939)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawArticle VPolitical Question DoctrineStandingconstitutional amendmentratificationpolitical questionstate legislators

Facts

Congress proposed the Child Labor Amendment in 1924, and the Kansas Legislature rejected it in 1925. In 1937, the Kansas Senate split 20-20 on a ratification resolution, and the Lieutenant Governor cast the deciding vote for ratification; the Kansas House then adopted the resolution by majority vote. Opposing legislators sued to compel correction of the Senate record and to prevent certification of ratification, arguing that the Lieutenant Governor could not vote, that Kansas's earlier rejection barred later ratification, and that the amendment had lost vitality through lapse of time. The Kansas Supreme Court rejected those arguments and denied mandamus.

Issue

Did the petitioning legislators have standing to seek Supreme Court review, and were the claims that Kansas's earlier rejection and the long lapse of time barred ratification judicially enforceable under Article V? Also, could the Court decide whether the Lieutenant Governor was part of the "legislature" for Article V ratification purposes?

Rule

State legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat ratification have a plain, direct, and adequate interest to seek review when those votes are allegedly nullified. Under Article V, questions about the effect of a state's prior rejection of a proposed amendment and whether a proposal has lost vitality through lapse of time are political questions for the political departments, with ultimate authority in Congress in connection with promulgation of adoption.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress proposed a constitutional amendment without any ratification deadline. In Albany, the New York Senate split 31-31 on a ratification resolution, and the presiding officer cast a vote that made ratification possible. Thirty-one senators who voted no sue after the state supreme court rejects their federal claim, alleging that the presiding officer had no authority under Article V to cast the deciding vote and that, without that vote, ratification would have failed.

Do the thirty-one senators have standing to seek Supreme Court review of the state court judgment?

Explanation. The majority held that legislators have standing when their votes were allegedly overridden or nullified and, if their position is correct, those votes would have been sufficient to defeat ratification. That is a direct and adequate interest, not merely a generalized grievance.