Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–281 
_________________ 

VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, ET AL., 
APPELLANTS v. GOLDEN BETHUNE-HILL, ET AL. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

[June 17, 2019] 

  JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE 
BREYER, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting. 
  I  would  hold  that  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates  has 
standing to take this appeal.  The Court disagrees for two 
reasons: first, because Virginia law does not authorize the 
House  to  defend  the  invalidated  redistricting  plan  on 
behalf  of  the  Commonwealth,  see  ante,  at  4–7,  and,  sec-
ond, because the imposition of the District Court’s district-
ing  plan  would  not  cause  the  House  the  kind  of  harm 
required by Article III of the Constitution, see ante, at 7–
12.  I am convinced that the second holding is wrong and 
therefore will not address the first. 

I 
  Our decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 
555, 560 (1992), identified the three elements that consti-
tute the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” 
demanded by Article III.  A party invoking the jurisdiction 
of a federal court must have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, 
(2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the 
defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favor-
able  judicial  decision.”    Spokeo,  Inc.  v.  Robins,  578  U. S. 
___,  ___  (2016)  (slip  op.,  at  6).    The  Virginia  House  of 
Delegates satisfies all those requirements in this case. 
  I begin with “injury in fact.”  It is clear, in my judgment,