Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

GILL v. WHITFORD 

Syllabus 

They  measure  instead  the  effect  that  a  gerrymander  has  on  the  for-
tunes of political parties.  That shortcoming confirms the fundamen-
tal problem with the plaintiffs’ case as presented on this record.  It is 
a  case  about  group  political  interests,  not  individual  legal  rights. 
Pp. 17–21. 

(d) Where a plaintiff has failed to demonstrate standing, this Court 
usually  directs  dismissal.    See,  e.g.,  DaimlerChrysler  Corp.  v.  Cuno, 
547  U. S.  332,  354.    Here,  however,  where  the  case  concerns  an  un-
settled  kind  of  claim  that  the  Court  has  not  agreed  upon,  the  con-
tours and justiciability of which are unresolved, the case is remanded
to  the  District  Court  to  give  the  plaintiffs  an  opportunity  to  prove 
concrete  and  particularized  injuries  using  evidence  that  would  tend
to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes.  Cf. Alabama Leg-
islative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U. S. ___, ___.  Pp. 21–22.

 218 F. Supp. 3d 837, vacated and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, 
GINSBURG,  BREYER,  ALITO,  SOTOMAYOR,  and  KAGAN,  JJ.,  joined,  and  in 
which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined except as to Part III.  KAGAN, 
J.,  filed  a  concurring  opinion,  in  which  GINSBURG,  BREYER,  and  SO-
TOMAYOR,  JJ.,  joined.  THOMAS,  J.,  filed  an  opinion  concurring  in  part
and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.