Sinkfield v. Kelley, 531 U.S. 28 (2000)

ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Syllabus

Appellees are white Alabama voters residing in majority-white districts adjacent to majority-minority districts. All of the districts were created under a state redistricting plan whose purpose was maximizing the number of majority-minority districts. Appellants are a group of African-American voters, whose initial state law suit resulted in the adoption of the plan at issue, and state officials. Appellees brought suit in Federal District Court challenging their own districts as the products of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The court agreed as to seven of the challenged magority-white districts, and enjoined their use in any election. On direct appeal to this Court, appellants contend, among other things, that appellees lack standing under United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737.

Held: appellees lack standing under Hays because they have neither alleged nor produced any evidence that any of them was assigned to his or her district as a direct result of having personally been subjected to a racial classification, see id. at 745. They essentially claim that an unconstitutional use of race in drawing the boundaries of majority-minority districts necessarily involves an unconstitutional use of race in drawing the boundaries of neighboring majority-white districts. This Court rejected that argument in Hays, explaining that evidence sufficient to support an equal protection claim under Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, with respect to a majority-minority district did not prove anything with respect to a heighboring majority-white district in which the appellees resided. Accordingly, an allegation to that effect does not allege a cognizable injury under the Fourteenth Amendment. 515 U.S. at 746.

96 F.Supp.2d 1301 vacated and remanded.