Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

1 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

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  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
join,

JUSTICE  BREYER,  and  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR 
concurring. 

The Court holds today that a plaintiff asserting a parti­
san gerrymandering claim based on a theory of vote dilu­
tion  must  prove  that  she  lives  in  a  packed  or  cracked 
district in order to establish standing.  See ante, at 14–17. 
The Court also holds that none of the plaintiffs here have
yet made that required showing.  See ante, at 17. 

I  agree  with  both  conclusions,  and  with  the  Court’s
decision to remand this case to allow the plaintiffs to prove 
that  they  live  in  packed  or  cracked  districts,  see  ante,  at 
21.  I write to address in more detail what kind of evidence 
the present plaintiffs (or any additional ones) must offer to
support that allegation.  And I write to make some obser­
vations about what would happen if they succeed in prov­
ing  standing—that  is,  about  how  their  vote  dilution  case
could  then  proceed  on  the  merits.    The  key  point  is  that
the  case  could  go  forward  in  much  the  same  way  it  did
below: Given the charges of statewide packing and  crack­
ing,  affecting  a  slew  of  districts  and  residents,  the  chal­
lengers  could  make  use  of  statewide  evidence  and  seek  a
statewide remedy.

I  also  write  separately  because  I  think  the  plaintiffs 
may have wanted to do more than present a vote dilution