Miller v. Johnson

515 U.S. 900, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 132 L. Ed. 2d 762 (1995)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Miller v. Johnson

United States Supreme Court
515 U.S. 900, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 132 L. Ed. 2d 762 (1995)

Play video

Facts

From 1980 to 1990, the State of Georgia had 10 congressional districts. The 1990 census revealed that Georgia’s population entitled it to an eleventh seat, requiring creation of an eleventh district. Georgia’s legislature developed a redistricting plan and submitted it to the Justice Department for preclearance as required by the Voting Rights Act to ensure that proposed changes would not negatively impact racial minorities. The proposed plan would have increased Georgia’s majority-minority districts, meaning districts predominated by minority voters, from one to two. The attorney general denied preclearance. Georgia’s legislature submitted a second plan, but it too was denied preclearance. It became clear that the Justice Department preferred a plan proposed by the American Civil Liberties Union that would create a third majority-Black district. The Georgia legislature then designed a redistricting plan in line with that plan. To create a third majority-minority district, the legislature drew the eleventh district in a way that stretched from Atlanta to Savannah. It encompassed four separate and distinct cities linked by hundreds of miles of narrow rural corridors. The Justice Department approved the plan. In the 1994 elections, all three majority-minority districts elected Black candidates. Five White voters living in the eleventh district (plaintiffs) filed suit against various state officials (defendants), alleging that the eleventh district was a racial gerrymander, meaning a manipulation of electoral boundaries for racial purposes, and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court held in the voters’ favor, and the state officials appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership