Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

though  redrawing  district  lines  indeed  may  affect  the 
membership  of  the  chamber,  the  House  as  an  institution 
has no cognizable interest in the identity of its members.6  
Although  the  House  urges  that  changes  to  district  lines 
will  “profoundly  disrupt  its  day-to-day  operations,”  Reply 
Brief 3, it is scarcely obvious how or why that is so.  As the 
party  invoking  this  Court’s  jurisdiction,  the  House  bears 
the burden of doing more than “simply alleg[ing] a nonob-
vious harm.”  Wittman, 578 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6). 
  Analogizing  to  “group[s]  other  than  a  legislative  body,” 
the  dissent  insists  that  the  House  has  suffered  an  “obvi-
ous” injury.  Post, at 3.  But groups like the string quartet 
and  basketball  team  posited  by  the  dissent  select  their 
own members.  Similarly, the political parties involved in 
the cases the dissent cites, see post, at 3, n. 1 (citing New 
York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 
202  (2008),  and  Eu  v.  San  Francisco  County  Democratic 
Central  Comm.,  489  U. S.  214,  229–230  (1989)),  select 
their  own  leadership  and  candidates.    In  stark  contrast, 
the House does not select its own members.  Instead, it is 
a representative body composed of members chosen by the 
people.  Changes to its membership brought about by the 
voting  public  thus  inflict  no  cognizable  injury  on  the 
House.7 
  The House additionally asserts injury from the creation 
of what it calls “divided constituencies,” suggesting that a 

—————— 

6 The  dissent  urges  that  changes  to  district  lines  will  alter  the 
House’s  future  legislative  output.    See  post,  at  1–5.    A  legislative 
chamber as an institution, however, suffers no legally cognizable injury 
from changes to the content of legislation its future members may elect 
to  enact.    By  contrast,  the  House  has  an  obvious  institutional  interest 
in the manner in which it goes about its business. 

7 The dissent further suggests that “we must assume that the district-
ing  plan  enacted  by  the  legislature  embodies  the  House’s  judgment” 
regarding  the  best  way  to  select  its  members.    Post,  at  4.    For  the 
reasons  explained  supra,  at  7–10,  however,  the  House’s  role  in  the 
legislative process does not give it standing to pursue this appeal.