|
Volume 8 no. 2 U.S. v. HAYS
The Court ruled 9-0 that the appellees lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because they "do not live in the district that is the primary focus of their racial gerrymandering claim and they have not otherwise demonstrated that they, personally, have been subjected to a racial classification."
Background
This case involves a challenge to the creation in Louisiana of a majority-minority district, in this case, the fourth congressional district represented by Cleo Fields (D). A three-judge district court panel ruled that the district was unconstitutional b ecause the specific intent of the legislature was to draw a majority African-American district. The panel reasoned that the "bizarre and irregular shape" of the district "can only be explained credibly as the product of race-conscious deci sion making" and thus the plan must be judged by the strict scrutiny standard, which the court found the plan failed to meet.
The Opinion
Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Breyer. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Souter. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg concu rred only in the judgment and wrote separately to so indicate.
Justice O'Connor outlines the three elements that must be present for a plaintiff to have standing:
- an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent,
- a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and
- it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Justice O'Connor states that the Court rejects the appellees position that "anybody in the state has a claim," and continues:
"Where a plaintiff resides in a racially gerrymandered district...the plaintiff has been denied equal treatment because of the legislature's reliance on racial criteria, and therefore has standing to challenge the legislature's action....
"Only those citizens able to allege injury 'as a direct result of having personally been denied equal treatment'...may bring such a challenge, and citizens who do so carry the burden of proving their standing, as well as their case on the meri ts." Thus, the Court vacated the decision of the District Court and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it.
Justice Ginsburg concurred in the judgment of the Court. Justice Breyer wrote a separate concurrence, joined by Justice Souter, to state that he joined the Court's opinion "to the extent that it discusses voters, such as those before us, who do not reside within the district that they challenge."
Justice Stevens in a separate concurrence expressed a broader view of the plaintiffs' lack of standing: "Because the Court does not recognize standing to enforce 'a personal right to a government that does not deny equal protection of the laws...it holds that the mere fact of respondents' Louisiana residency does not give them standing. I agree with t hat conclusion. What I do not understand is the majority's view that these racially diverse respondents should fare better if they resided in black-majority districts instead of white-majority districts. Respondents have not alleged or proved that the S tate's districting has substantially disadvantaged any group of voters in their opportunity to influence the political process. They therefore lack standing to argue that Louisiana has adopted an unconstitutional gerrymander."
For further discussion, see CIVIL RIGHTS MONITOR, vol. 7, no. 6, February 1995.
  
| 
