# Miller v. Johnson > Supreme Court of the United States · June 29, 1995 · 515 U.S. 900 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433215 ## Case - **Full name:** MILLER Et Al. v. JOHNSON Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 29, 1995 - **Citations:** 515 U.S. 900; 115 S. Ct. 2475; 132 L. Ed. 2d 762; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4462 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Connor - **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter - **Cited by:** 492 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/9433215 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that the state does not have a compelling interest in "complying with whatever preclearance mandates the Justice Department issues," and holding that when a state relies on the Department of Justice's "determination that race-based districting is necessary to comply… - finding that the following examples provided direct evidence of racial motivation: legislator’s email referring to the transfer of voters in and out of districts based on the racial makeup of the voting-age population; state’s concession that one of its goals was to create an … - recognizing that "[t]he distinction between being aware of racial considerations and being motivated by them may be difficult to make," but nonetheless holding that a racial gerrymandering plaintiff may prevail by showing "that race was the predominant factor motivating the le… - holding that a state subordinated traditional redistricting criteria to race by noting the objective characteristics of the district which strongly indicated racial 22 No. 2021AP1450-OA motivations as well as statements made by map drawers, confirming the use of race in drawin… - holding that a state subordinated traditional redistricting criteria to race by noting the objective 18 No. 2021AP1450-OA characteristics of the district which strongly indicated racial motivations as well as statements made by map drawers, confirming the use of race in drawin… ## Opinion text Justice O’Connor, concurring. I understand the threshold standard the Court adopts— that “the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles ... to racial considerations,” ante, at 916 — to be a demanding one. To invoke strict scrutiny, a plaintiff must show that the State has relied on race in substantial disregard of customary and traditional districting practices. Those practices provide a crucial frame of reference and therefore constitute a significant governing principle in cases of this kind. The standard would be no different if a legislature had drawn the boundaries to favor some other ethnic group; certainly the standard does not treat efforts to create majority-minority districts less favorably than similar efforts on behalf of other groups. Indeed, the driving force behind the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to end legal discrimination against blacks. Application of the Court’s standard does not throw into doubt the vast majority of the Nation’s 435 congressional districts, where presumably the States have drawn the boundaries in accordance with their customary districting principles. That is so even though race may well have been *929 considered in the redistricting process. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 646 (1993); ante, at 916. But application of the Court’s standard helps achieve Shaw’s basic objective of making extreme instances of gerrymandering subject to meaningful judicial review. I therefore join the Court’s opinion. *0 [[Image here]] [[Image here]] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433215. Public record. Not legal advice.