1 minute read

Miller v. Johnson

Significance, A Case Of Racial Gerrymandering, Points Of Affirmation And Dissension, Impact, Further Readings


Zell Miller, et al., Lucious Abrams, Jr., et al., and United States


Davida Johnson, et al.

Appellants' Claim

The state of Georgia's redistricting plan enacted in 1991 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when the Eleventh District was created. The appellants claimed that the redistricting plan was based upon racial factors and did not serve any compelling governmental interest.

Chief Lawyer for Appellants

David F. Walbert

Chief Lawyer for Appellees

A. Lee Parks

Justices for the Court

Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas

Justices Dissenting

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

29 June 1995


The Supreme Court determined that the Georgia redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as tested by the decision in Shaw v. Reno (1993). The redistricting of Georgia with the creation of the Eleventh District was done predominantly on a racial basis.

Related Cases

  • Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
  • Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1995).
  • Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present