# United States v. Hays

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 29, 1995 · 515 U.S. 737

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433202

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES v. HAYS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 29, 1995
- **Citations:** 515 U.S. 737; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 256; 95 Daily Journal DAR 8561; 63 U.S.L.W. 4679; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4976; 115 S. Ct. 2431; 132 L. Ed. 2d 635; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4464
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breyer
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg
- **Cited by:** 821 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433202

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that plaintiffs asserting a racial gerrymander can *641demonstrate injury for standing purposes only where the "plaintiff resides in a racially gerrymandered district" because individuals not in the challenged districts do not suffer "the special representational harms…
- explaining that “standing is perhaps the most important of the jurisdictional doctrines” and federal courts “are required to address [standing] even if the court[] below [has] not passed on it, and even if the parties fail to raise the issue . . . . (alterations adopted) (quot…
- concluding that being subject to racial classification is injury for standing purposes even if it does not lead to measurable harm because such classifications “threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility”
- holding that plaintiffs lack standing where 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.”
- concluding that, by definition, article III standing is not an affirmative defense

## Opinion text

*750 Justice Breyer,
with whom Justice Souter joins,
concurring.
I join 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433202. Public record. Not legal advice.