Miller v. Johnson
The Supreme Court struck down Georgia's Eleventh Congressional District, ruling that the state had let race override traditional map-drawing principles like compactness and keeping communities together.
The decision expands on the Court's earlier ruling in Shaw v. Reno by holding that a district doesn't have to look bizarre on a map to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — proof that race was the predominant motive is enough, and the Court also rejected the idea that pressure from the Justice Department to maximize minority districts could justify race-based line-drawing.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court found the Eleventh District unconstitutional under Shaw v. Reno; Georgia officials and the United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
After the 1990 census gave Georgia an eleventh congressional seat, the state's legislature repeatedly submitted redistricting plans to the Justice Department for approval. The Department rejected the first two plans because they created only two majority-Black districts, pushing Georgia to adopt a third majority-Black district, the new Eleventh, which stretched roughly 260 miles connecting distant Black populations in Atlanta and Savannah. Five white voters in that district sued, arguing the district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The question before the Court
Could Georgia draw a new congressional district mainly to guarantee a third mostly-Black district, after federal officials pressured the state to maximize the number of such districts?
Why it matters
States drawing congressional and legislative maps after this decision faced tighter limits on using race as the main factor, even when trying to help minority voters gain representation. The ruling also curbed the Justice Department's power to push states toward maximizing majority-minority districts during the preclearance process, reshaping how the Voting Rights Act operated in redistricting nationwide.
What changes now
The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling, meaning Georgia would need to redraw the Eleventh District without letting race predominate over traditional districting principles. The decision also signaled that other states with Justice-Department-driven majority-minority districts could face similar constitutional challenges, and the Justice Department's preclearance practices going forward would need to avoid demanding race-maximized districts.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide that race can never be considered in redistricting, nor that compliance with the Voting Rights Act can never justify a race-conscious district; it left open whether such compliance could be a compelling interest in a case where the Act actually required the challenged district.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice O'Connor
Justice O'Connor stressed that the Court's new test is demanding, requiring proof that the state substantially disregarded customary districting practices, not merely that race was one factor among many. She emphasized the ruling would not call into question most of the nation's congressional districts, where race was considered but did not override normal districting principles.
Dissent — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens argued the white voters challenging the district suffered no real, legally recognizable injury, since unlike historical segregation cases, anyone of any race could live in the district. He contended the Court wrongly treated a plan designed to include a previously underrepresented minority group the same as a traditional gerrymander meant to entrench a dominant group's power.
Dissent — Justice Ginsburg
“Georgia's Eleventh District is hardly "bizarre," "extremely irregular," or "irrational on its face."”Arguing the district reflected traditional districting practices rather than an extreme racial gerrymander.
Justice Ginsburg argued the majority's new 'predominant factor' test goes too far beyond Shaw v. Reno, since Georgia's Eleventh District, unlike the bizarre North Carolina district in Shaw, reflected many traditional districting practices such as keeping counties and precincts largely intact. She would have upheld the district, noting Congress and history justify extra judicial vigilance to protect minority voters, not majority voters challenging efforts to include Black representation.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court clarified that a district need not look bizarre or oddly shaped on a map to trigger the strictest constitutional review; instead, a challenger can rely on any evidence, including legislative intent, to show that race was the predominant factor behind a district's boundaries.
- The Court set the legal test: strict scrutiny — the toughest constitutional standard, requiring a compelling government reason and narrowly tailored means — applies whenever a plaintiff shows the legislature subordinated traditional, race-neutral districting principles (like compactness, keeping counties whole, and respecting shared community interests) to racial considerations.
- Applying that test, the Court found the trial court's factual finding that race predominated in drawing the Eleventh District was not clearly wrong, pointing to the district's odd shape combined with the state's own admissions that it added areas specifically to boost Black population.
- The Court then asked whether Georgia had a compelling interest justifying the race-based design, and rejected the idea that complying with Justice Department demands alone could supply one, because courts must independently verify that the Voting Rights Act actually required the challenged district rather than simply deferring to the agency's assertion.
- The Court concluded that Georgia's earlier plans, which increased minority representation without a third majority-Black district, could not have violated the Act's core anti-retrogression purpose, so the Justice Department's insistence on a third district exceeded what the statute required.
- Because the asserted compelling interest evaporated once the Court rejected the agency's expansive reading of the statute, Georgia's race-based design failed strict scrutiny.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Limits Shaw v. Reno (509 U.S. 630)
Clarifies that a district need not look bizarre on its face; other evidence can prove race predominated in redistricting.
Reaffirms Beer v. United States (425 U.S. 130)
Reaffirms that the Voting Rights Act's Section 5 targets only retrogression, not maximizing minority districts.
Distinguishes United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey (430 U.S. 144)
Says that case addressed vote dilution, not a claim that the state separated voters by race.