|
|
Louisiana v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Louisiana v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995)
Louisiana v. Hays No. 94-558 Argued April 19, 1995 Decided June 29, 1995 * 515 U.S. 737
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Syllabus
Appellees claim in this litigation that Louisiana’s congressional redistricting plan (Act 1) is a racial gerrymander that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. While their claim’s primary focus is District 4, a majority-minority district, appellees live in District 5. The District Court invalidated Act 1, and the State and the United States, which had precleared Act 1 pursuant to its authority under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, appealed directly to this Court.
Held: Appellees lack standing to challenge Act 1. This Court has recognized that a generalized grievance against allegedly illegal governmental conduct is insufficient to provide standing, see, e.g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, and has applied that rule in the equal protection context, see Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 755. Thus, appellees’ position that "anybody in the State" can state a racial gerrymander claim is rejected, and they must show that they, personally, have been subjected to a racial classification. Appellees, however, have pointed to no evidence tending to show that they have suffered personal injury, and review of the record has revealed none. Assuming arguendo that the evidence here is sufficient to state a claim under Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, with respect to District 4, it does not prove that the State Legislature intended District 5 to have a particular racial composition. Similarly, the fact that Act 1 affects all Louisiana voters by classifying each of them as a member of a particular congressional district does not mean that every voter has standing to challenge Act 1 as a racial classification. The Court’s holding in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, that an individual has the right not to be excluded from a jury on account of race does not support appellees’ position. A juror so excluded has personally suffered the race-based harm recognized in Powers, and it is the fact of personal injury that appellees have failed to establish here. Pp. 742-747.
862 F.Supp. 119, vacated and remanded.
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined, post, p. 750. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 750. GINSBURG, J., concurred in the judgment.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Louisiana v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) in 515 U.S. 737 515 U.S. 738. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LWQG9MGFLDGP7E6.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Louisiana v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995), in 515 U.S. 737, page 515 U.S. 738. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LWQG9MGFLDGP7E6.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Louisiana v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995). cited in 1995, 515 U.S. 737, pp.515 U.S. 738. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LWQG9MGFLDGP7E6.
|