Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

to  Donohue.  The  single  statewide  measure  of  partisan 
advantage  delivered  by  the  efficiency  gap  treats  Whitford 
and  Donohue  as  indistinguishable,  even  though  their
individual situations are quite different.

That  shortcoming  confirms  the  fundamental  problem
with the plaintiffs’ case as presented on this record.  It is a 
case  about  group  political  interests,  not  individual  legal 
rights.  But  this  Court  is  not  responsible  for  vindicating 
generalized  partisan  preferences.  The  Court’s  constitu­
tionally prescribed role is to vindicate the individual rights
of the people appearing before it. 

III 
In cases where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate Article III
standing, we usually direct the dismissal of the plaintiff ’s 
claims.  See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 
332, 354 (2006).  This is not the usual case.  It concerns an 
unsettled  kind  of  claim  this  Court  has  not  agreed  upon,
the  contours  and  justiciability  of  which  are  unresolved. 
Under  the  circumstances,  and  in  light  of  the  plaintiffs’ 
allegations that Donohue, Johnson, Mitchell, and Wallace
live  in  districts  where  Democrats  like  them  have  been 
packed or cracked, we decline to direct dismissal. 

We  therefore  remand  the  case  to  the  District  Court  so 

that  the  plaintiffs  may  have  an  opportunity  to  prove  con­
crete  and  particularized  injuries  using  evidence—unlike 
the  bulk  of  the  evidence  presented  thus  far—that  would 
tend  to  demonstrate  a  burden  on  their  individual  votes. 
Cf.  Alabama  Legislative  Black  Caucus,  575  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 8) (remanding for further consideration of the 
plaintiffs’  gerrymandering  claims  on  a  district-by-district
basis).  We express no view on the merits of the plaintiffs’ 
case.  We  caution,  however,  that  “standing  is  not  dis­
pensed in gross”: A plaintiff ’s remedy must be tailored to 
redress  the  plaintiff ’s  particular  injury.    Cuno,  547  U. S., 
at 353.