Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Miller v. Johnson

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

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Miller v. Johnson

United States Supreme Court

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

Play video

Facts

In 1992, the state of Georgia (defendant) submitted a redistricting plan for state congressional districts to the Department of Justice for preapproval in accordance with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Department rejected the redistricting plan on grounds that the plan only created two districts in which members of minority groups constituted the majority of voters. The state submitted a revised plan, which was again rejected. The state submitted a third plan developed around a redistricting scheme proposed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Designing the redistricting plan according to the proposed scheme required drawing new district lines in a fashion that split more than two dozen counties and the city of Savannah into different districts. The Department approved the third plan. In the next election following adoption of the redistricting plan, African-American candidates were elected in each of the three majority African-American districts created by the new plan. A group of five white voters from one of the majority African-American districts (plaintiffs) filed suit against state officials in the federal district court. The voters claimed that the redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment because the only rational explanation for the layout of district boundaries was to partition voters on the basis of race. The district court held that the redistricting plan constituted a racial gerrymander and ruled in favor of the complaining voters. The state petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

Dissent (Ginsburg, 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 606,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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 606,000 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
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 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