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.
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
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
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.
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
- Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1995).
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
- Muscarello v. United States - Significance, Drugs And Guns, To Carry A Firearm, Impact, The National Firearms Act
- The Microsoft Trial: 1998-2001 - Frc Begins Investigation Of Microsoft In 1990, Department Of Justice Decides To Prosecute, Microsoft Raked At Trial
- Miller v. Johnson - Significance
- Miller v. Johnson - Further Readings
- Miller v. Johnson - A Case Of Racial Gerrymandering
- Miller v. Johnson - Points Of Affirmation And Dissension
- Miller v. Johnson - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias