Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES ET AL. v. 
BETHUNE-HILL ET AL. 

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

No. 18–281.  Argued March 18, 2019—Decided June 17, 2019 

After  the  2010  census,  Virginia  redrew  legislative  districts  for  the 
State’s Senate and House of Delegates.  Voters in 12 impacted House 
districts sued two state agencies and four election officials (collective-
ly,  State  Defendants),  charging  that  the  redrawn  districts  were  ra-
cially  gerrymandered  in  violation  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment’s 
Equal  Protection  Clause.    The  House  of  Delegates  and  its  Speaker 
(collectively,  the  House)  intervened  as  defendants,  participating  in 
the bench trial, on appeal to this Court, and at a second bench trial, 
where a three-judge District Court held that 11 of the districts were 
unconstitutionally  drawn,  enjoined  Virginia  from  conducting  elec-
tions  for  those  districts  before  adoption  of a  new  plan, and  gave  the 
General Assembly several months to adopt that plan.  Virginia’s At-
torney General announced that the State would not pursue an appeal 
to this Court.  The House, however, did file an appeal. 

Held: The  House  lacks  standing,  either  to  represent  the  State’s  inter-

ests or in its own right.  Pp. 3–12. 

(a) To cross the standing threshold, a litigant must show (1) a con-
crete and particularized injury, that (2) is fairly traceable to the chal-
lenged conduct, and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable deci-
sion.  Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 704.  Standing must be 
met  at  every  stage of  the litigation, including  on  appeal.    Arizonans 
for  Official  English  v.  Arizona,  520  U. S.  43,  64.    And  as  a  jurisdic-
tional  requirement,  standing  cannot  be  waived  or  forfeited.    To  ap-
peal a decision that the primary party does not challenge, an interve-
nor  must 
  Wittman  v. 
Personhuballah, 578 U. S. ___, ___.  Pp. 3–4. 

independently  demonstrate  standing. 

(b) The  House  lacks  standing  to  represent  the  State’s  interests.