Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–1161 
_________________ 

BEVERLY R. GILL, ET AL., APPELLANTS v.
 
WILLIAM WHITFORD, ET AL. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN 

[June 18, 2018] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. 

I  join  Parts  I  and  II  of  the  Court’s  opinion  because  I
agree  that  the  plaintiffs  have  failed  to  prove  Article  III
standing.  I do not join Part III, which gives the plaintiffs
another chance to prove their standing on remand.  When 
a  plaintiff  lacks  standing,  our  ordinary  practice  is  to  re-
mand  the  case  with  instructions  to  dismiss  for  lack  of 
jurisdiction.  E.g.,  Lance  v.  Coffman,  549  U. S.  437,  442 
(2007)  (per  curiam);  DaimlerChrysler  Corp.  v.  Cuno,  547 
U. S. 332, 354 (2006); United States v. Hays, 515 U. S. 737, 
747  (1995).    The  Court  departs  from  our  usual  practice 
because  this  is  supposedly  “not  the  usual  case.”    Ante,  at 
21.  But  there  is  nothing  unusual  about  it.    As  the  Court 
explains, the plaintiffs’ lack of standing follows from long-
established principles of law.  See ante, at 13–17.  After a 
year  and  a  half  of  litigation  in  the  District  Court,  includ-
ing  a  4-day  trial,  the  plaintiffs  had  a  more-than-ample 
opportunity to prove their standing under these principles. 
They failed to do so.  Accordingly, I would have remanded 
this case with instructions to dismiss.