Supreme Court· 6/29/1995

Miller v. Johnson

Citations

515 U.S. 900
115 S. Ct. 2475
132 L. Ed. 2d 762
1995 U.S. LEXIS 4462

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “[flederal court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.”
noting that plan split several counties, and thus violated traditional districting principles-use of precincts could not mitigate this fact in congressional districting
recognizing the compliance with the Voting Rights Act as a compelling state interest
noting that courts must be \sensitive to the complex interplay of forces that enter a legislature’s redistricting calculus” and afford states the \discretion to exercise the political judgment necessary to balance competing interests”
recognizing “respect for political subdivisions” as a traditional districting principle
affirming the district court's conclusion that one district in Georgia's congressional redistricting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kennedy, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

390 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

60 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.