Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill

Background

After the 2010 census, Virginia redrew legislative districts. Voters in 12 affected House districts sued state election agencies and officials, saying the maps were racial gerrymanders. The Virginia House of Delegates intervened to defend the maps. A three-judge federal court found 11 House districts unconstitutional and ordered new maps; the State’s Attorney General said the Commonwealth would not appeal, but the House of Delegates filed its own appeal to this Court.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the House had the right to appeal. It explained the three-part standing test and said an intervenor who seeks appellate review must show an independent right to invoke a court’s power. Virginia law gives the Attorney General exclusive authority to represent the Commonwealth in civil litigation. The House pointed to past cases and argued it would be harmed by new districts, but the Court found no legal authorization for the House to displace the Attorney General and held that a single chamber of a bicameral legislature cannot separately assert the legislature’s interests.

Real world impact

Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the House cannot continue this challenge on its own and the Attorney General speaks for the State in court unless Virginia law provides otherwise. The decision resolves only who may appeal, not whether the maps are lawful; the district-court remedial orders remain subject to whatever further review the State or Attorney General seeks.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito dissented, arguing the House suffers a concrete institutional injury when district lines change and would have allowed the House to appeal, citing prior precedent that treated similar institutional harms as sufficient for standing.