(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 

Syllabus 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

WITTMAN ET AL. v. PERSONHUBALLAH ET AL. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

No. 14–1504. Argued March 21, 2016—Decided May 23, 2016 

Appellee voters from Virginia’s Congressional District 3 filed suit challenging the Commonwealth’s 2013 congressional redistricting plan on

the ground that the legislature’s redrawing of their district was an

unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Appellant Members of Congress from Virginia, including, as relevant here, Representatives 

Randy Forbes, Robert Wittman, and David Brat, intervened to help 

defend the Commonwealth’s plan. The District Court struck down 

the plan, and the intervenors appealed to this Court, which vacated 

the judgment below and remanded the case in light of one of the 

Court’s recent decisions. Again, the District Court held that the redistricting plan was unconstitutional, and again, the intervenors appealed. This time, the Court directed the parties to address whether 

appellants lack standing, since none reside in or represent Congressional District 3. 

Held: Appellants lack standing to pursue this appeal. Pp. 3–6.

(a) A party invoking a federal court’s jurisdiction can establish Article III standing only by showing that he has suffered an “injury in

fact,” that the injury is “fairly traceable” to the challenged conduct, 

and that the injury is likely to be “redressed” by a favorable decision. 

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. The need to 

satisfy these requirements persists throughout the life of the suit. 

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 67. Pp. 3–4.

(b) In light of the District Court’s decision striking down the redistricting plan, Representative Forbes, the Republican incumbent in 

District 4, decided to run in District 2. Originally, Representative

Forbes argued that he would abandon his campaign in District 2 and

run in District 4 if this Court ruled in his favor. Now, however, he 

has informed the Court that he will continue to seek election in Dis-
 

2 WITTMAN v. PERSONHUBALLAH 

Syllabus 

trict 2 regardless of this appeal’s outcome. Given this change, this

Court does not see how any injury that Forbes might have suffered is 

“likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. ___, ___. Regardless of whether Forbes

had standing at the time he first intervened, he does not have standing now. 

Representatives Wittman and Brat, the incumbents in Congressional Districts 1 and 7, respectively, have not identified any record 

evidence to support their allegation that the redistricting plan has 

harmed their prospects of reelection. The allegation of an injury, 

without more, is not sufficient to satisfy Article III. See Lujan, supra, at 561. Given the complete lack of evidence of any injury in this 

case, the Court need not decide when, or whether, evidence of the 

kind of injury the Representatives allege would prove sufficient for 

Article III purposes. Pp. 4–6. 

Appeal dismissed. 

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 
 

 

_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 14–1504 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS v.
 

GLORIA PERSONHUBALLAH, ET AL. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
 

[May 23, 2016] 

JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Ten Members of Congress from Virginia, intervenors in 

the District Court below, have appealed a judgment from a

three-judge panel striking down a congressional redistricting plan applicable to the November 2016 election. 

We conclude that the intervenors now lack standing to

pursue the appeal. And we consequently order the appeal 

dismissed. 

I 

This lawsuit began in October 2013, after the thenGovernor of Virginia signed into law a new congressional

redistricting plan (which we shall call the “Enacted Plan”) 

designed to reflect the results of the 2010 census. Three 

voters from Congressional District 3 brought this lawsuit

against the Commonwealth. They challenged the Enacted 

Plan on the ground that its redrawing of their district’s

lines was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The 

Members of Congress now before us intervened to help

defend the Enacted Plan. 

After a bench trial, a divided three-judge District Court

agreed with the voters. It concluded that the Common-
 

2 WITTMAN v. PERSONHUBALLAH 

Opinion of the Court 

wealth had used race as the predominant basis for modifying the boundaries of District 3. Page v. Virginia State 

Bd. of Elections, 58 F. Supp. 3d 533, 550 (ED Va. 2014). 

And it found that the Commonwealth’s use of race, when 

scrutinized strictly, was not narrowly tailored to serve a

compelling governmental interest. Id., at 553. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia did not appeal. Instead, 

the intervenor Members of Congress appealed the District

Court’s judgment to this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1253 

(granting the right to directly appeal certain three-judge 

district court orders to the Supreme Court). Having just 

decided a racial gerrymandering case, Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U. S. ___ (2015), we

vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for 

reconsideration in light of that recent decision. Cantor v. 

Personhuballah, 575 U. S. ___ (2015). 

On remand the District Court again decided that District 3, as modified by the Enacted Plan, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Page v. Virginia State Bd. of 

Elections, 2015 WL 3604029, *19 (ED Va., June 5, 2015). 

The court’s order set forth a deadline of September 1,

2015, for the Virginia Legislature to adopt a new redistricting plan.

Again, the Commonwealth of Virginia decided not to

appeal. And again, the intervenor Members of Congress

appealed to this Court. On September 28, 2015, we asked 

the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether 

the intervenors had standing to appeal the District Court’s

decision. 576 U. S. ___. As relevant here, the intervenors 

argued in their supplemental brief that they had standing 

because the District Court’s order, if allowed to stand, 

would necessarily result in a redrawing of their districts

that would harm some of the intervenors’ reelection prospects. On November 13, 2015, we issued an order explaining that the Court was “postpon[ing]” “consideration

of the question of jurisdiction” until “the hearing of the 
 

Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

case on the merits.” In addition, our order instructed the 

parties to dedicate a portion of their briefs and their oral 

argument time to the issue of standing—specifically,

“[w]hether [the intervenors] lack standing because none 

reside in or represent the only congressional district whose 

constitutionality is at issue in this case.” 577 U. S. ___. 

In the meantime, the Virginia Legislature failed to meet 

the September 1 deadline imposed by the District Court.

The District Court thus appointed a Special Master to

develop a new districting plan. The Special Master did so, 

and on January 7, 2016, the District Court approved that 

plan (which we shall call the “Remedial Plan”). The intervenor Members of Congress asked this Court to stay implementation of the Remedial Plan pending resolution of 

their direct appeal to this Court. We declined to do so. 

577 U. S. ___ (2016). On March 21, we heard oral argument. That argument focused both on (1) the merits of 

intervenors’ claims denying any racial gerrymander and

(2) the question of standing. In respect to standing, the 

Court focused on whether the District Court’s approval of 

the Remedial Plan on January 7 supported, or undermined, the intervenors’ standing argument that, in the

absence of the original Enacted Plan, they would suffer 

harm. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9–23. 

II 

As our request for supplemental briefing, our order

postponing consideration of jurisdiction, and our questions

at oral argument suggested, we cannot decide the merits

of this case unless the intervenor Members of Congress

challenging the District Court’s racial-gerrymandering

decision have standing. We conclude that the intervenors 

now lack standing. We must therefore dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

Article III of the Constitution grants the federal courts

the power to decide legal questions only in the presence of 
 

4 WITTMAN v. PERSONHUBALLAH 

Opinion of the Court 

an actual “Cas[e]” or “Controvers[y].” This restriction 

requires a party invoking a federal court’s jurisdiction to

demonstrate standing. Arizonans for Official English v. 

Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 64 (1997). A party has standing 

only if he shows that he has suffered an “injury in fact,” 

that the injury is “fairly traceable” to the conduct being

challenged, and that the injury will likely be “redressed” 

by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 

504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992) (internal quotation marks

and ellipsis omitted). The need to satisfy these three

requirements persists throughout the life of the lawsuit. 

Arizonans for Official English, 520 U. S., at 67. 

The relevant parties here are the intervenor Members of 

Congress. Since the Commonwealth of Virginia has not 

pursued an appeal, only the intervenors currently attack

the District Court’s decision striking down the Enacted

Plan. And an “intervenor cannot step into the shoes of the 

original party” (here, the Commonwealth) “unless the

intervenor independently ‘fulfills the requirements of

Article III.’” Id., at 65 (quoting Diamond v. Charles, 476 

U. S. 54, 68 (1986)).

Although 10 current and former Members of Congress

are technically intervenors, only 3 of the 10 now claim

before this Court that they have standing. Those three 

Members are Representative Randy Forbes, Representative Robert Wittman, and Representative David Brat. 

Representative Forbes, the Republican incumbent in

Congressional District 4, told us in his brief that, unless 

the Enacted Plan is upheld, District 4 will be “completely 

transform[ed] from a 48% Democratic district into a safe

60% Democratic district.” Brief for Appellants 58. According to Forbes, the threat of that kind of transformation 

compelled him to run in a different district, namely, Congressional District 2.

At oral argument, Forbes’ counsel told the Court that, if

the Enacted Plan were reinstated, Representative Forbes 
Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

would abandon his election effort in Congressional District 

2 and run in his old district, namely, Congressional District 4. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. Soon after oral argument,

however, the Court received a letter from counsel stating

that Representative Forbes would “continue to seek election in District 2 regardless of whether the Enacted Plan

is reinstated.” Letter from Counsel for Appellants to Scott 

S. Harris, Clerk of Court (Mar. 25, 2016), p. 2. Given this 

letter, we do not see how any injury that Forbes might

have suffered “is likely to be redressed by a favorable 

judicial decision.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. ___, 

___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 5–6). Consequently, we need 

not decide whether, at the time he first intervened, Representative Forbes possessed standing. Regardless, he does 

not possess standing now. See Arizonans for Official 

English, supra, at 65; Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 

494 U. S. 472, 477–478 (1990). 

Representative Wittman and Representative Brat are

Republicans representing Congressional District 1 and 

Congressional District 7, respectively. In their opening 

brief they argue that they have standing to challenge the 

District Court’s order because, unless the Enacted Plan is 

reinstated, “a portion of the[ir] ‘base electorate’” will 

necessarily be replaced with “unfavorable Democratic 

voters,” thereby reducing the likelihood of the Representatives’ reelection. Brief for Appellants 58; see also Application for Stay of Remedial Plan Pending Resolution of 

Direct Appeal of Liability Judgment 25. Even assuming, 

without deciding, that this kind of injury is legally cognizable, Representatives Wittman and Brat have not 

identified record evidence establishing their alleged harm.

We have made clear that the “party invoking federal 

jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing” that he has

suffered an injury by submitting “affidavit[s] or other

evidence.” Lujan, 504 U. S., at 561. When challenged by a

court (or by an opposing party) concerned about standing, 
 

6 WITTMAN v. PERSONHUBALLAH 

Opinion of the Court 

the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction cannot simply 

allege a nonobvious harm, without more. Ibid. Here, 

there is no “more.” Representatives Wittman and Brat

claim that unless the Enacted Plan is reinstated, their 

districts will be flooded with Democratic voters and their 

chances of reelection will accordingly be reduced. But we 

have examined the briefs, looking for any evidence that an

alternative to the Enacted Plan (including the Remedial

Plan) will reduce the relevant intervenors’ chances of

reelection, and have found none. The briefs focus on Congressional District 3 and Congressional District 4, districts

with which Representatives Wittman and Brat are not 

associated. 

We need go no further. Given the lack of evidence that 

any of the three Representatives has standing, we need

not decide when, or whether, evidence of the kind of injury 

they allege would prove sufficient for purposes of Article

III’s requirements. In light of the letter we have received 

about Representative Forbes, and the absence of any 

evidence in the briefs supporting any harm to the other

two Representatives, we conclude that none of the intervenors has standing to bring an appeal in this case. We 

consequently lack jurisdiction and therefore dismiss this

appeal. 

It is so ordered.