Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Gill v. Whitford

Supreme Court of the United States · 2018 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawStandingPartisan GerrymanderingArticle IIIArticle IIIstandinginjury in factparticularized injury

Facts

Wisconsin enacted Act 43, a legislative redistricting plan under which Republicans won Assembly majorities in 2012 and 2014. The plaintiffs, Wisconsin Democratic voters, alleged that the legislature intentionally packed and cracked Democratic voters to diminish Democrats' ability to convert votes into legislative seats statewide, relying heavily on statewide efficiency-gap evidence. Four plaintiffs alleged that they lived in packed or cracked Assembly districts, but at trial the plaintiffs focused on statewide partisan injury rather than proving injury to their own votes in their own districts. Lead plaintiff Whitford acknowledged that Act 43 had not affected his ability to vote for and elect a Democrat in his district.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge Wisconsin's entire legislative map based on an alleged statewide partisan disadvantage to Democratic voters. More specifically, the question was whether evidence of statewide partisan asymmetry, without proof of a concrete and particularized injury to each plaintiff in his or her own district, was sufficient to establish standing.

Rule

A plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction must show Article III standing by proving an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and likely redressable by a favorable decision. In a partisan gerrymandering case alleging vote dilution through packing or cracking, the injury is district specific because it arises from the boundaries and composition of the plaintiff's own district; a plaintiff may not rely on a generalized statewide interest in a party's overall representation or legislative influence.

🔒

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.

Leah Moreno, a voter in Columbus, Ohio, sues state election officials over a new legislative map. She offers only statewide data showing that her preferred party won 49% of the statewide vote but only 38% of the seats, and she says the map diminishes her party’s influence over statewide lawmaking.

Does Leah have Article III standing on that showing?

Explanation. Article III requires a personal, concrete, and particularized injury. Under the majority opinion, when the alleged harm is vote dilution through packing or cracking, the injury is district specific and must be tied to the plaintiff’s own district. A voter cannot rely solely on a generalized interest in her party’s statewide representation or policymaking influence. The Court did not decide categorical nonjusticiability.