Coleman v. Miller
Coleman v. Miller is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the intricacies of the constitutional amendment ratification process. In this case, the Court upheld a lower court's ruling that permitted the lieutenant-governor of Kansas to cast a tie-breaking vote during amendment ratification. The decision also allowed states to ratify constitutional amendments even after initially rejecting them, while deeming the question of ratification time limits a political matter for Congress to decide. This case introduced complexities related to the Fourteenth Amendment, which subsequently affected how amendments are ratified. Following Coleman, Congress began implementing time limits for proposed amendments, a practice that has shaped the amendment process. The implications of Coleman were later narrowed by the Court's ruling in Idaho v. Freeman, which confirmed a state's ability to rescind its ratification of an amendment. Overall, Coleman v. Miller plays a pivotal role in understanding the legal frameworks surrounding constitutional amendments in the United States.
Coleman v. Miller
Date: June 5, 1939
Citation: 307 U.S. 433
Issue: Constitutional amendment process
Significance: In deciding three issues regarding the ratification of a child labor constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, adding considerable confusion to the process.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority with Justices Pierce Butler and James C. McReynolds dissenting. The Court left standing a lower court’s decision that the lieutenant-governor of Kansas could cast a tie-breaking vote in the constitutional amendment ratification process. It also found the state’s ratification of an amendment it had previously rejected and the issue of whether time limits should exist for ratification of amendments to be political questions for Congress to resolve. Congress later began to add time limits to all proposed constitutional amendments. The vagueness of Coleman confused the ratification process for amendments to the U.S. Constitution by introducing Fourteenth Amendment considerations. Subsequently, Coleman was limited by Idaho v. Freeman (1981), in which the Court allowed a state to rescind its ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment after the original deadline was extended by Congress.
