SINKFIELD et al. v. KELLEY et al.

531US1 Unit: $$U4 [03-28-01 17:13:30] PAGES PGT: OPINBX
28 OCTOBER TERM, 2000
Per Curiam
SINKFIELD et al. v. KELLEY et al.
on appeal from the united states district court for
the middle district of alabama
No. 00–132. Decided November 27, 2000*
Appellees are white Alabama voters residing in majority-white dis-
tricts adjacent to majority-minority districts. All of the districts were
created under a state redistricting plan whose purpose was maximizing
the number of majority-minority districts. Appellants are a group of
African-American voters, whose initial state lawsuit resulted in the
adoption of the plan at issue, and state officials. Appellees brought
suit in Federal District Court challenging their own districts as the
products of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The court agreed
as to seven of the challenged majority-white districts and enjoined their
use in any election. On direct appeal to this Court, appellants contend,
among other things, that appellees lack standing under United States
v. Hays, 515 U. S. 737.
Held: Appellees lack standing under Hays because they have neither al-
leged nor produced any evidence that any of them was assigned to his
or her district as a direct result of having personally been subjected
to a racial classification, see id., at 745. They essentially claim that an
unconstitutional use of race in drawing the boundaries of majority-
minority districts necessarily involves an unconstitutional use of race
in drawing the boundaries of neighboring majority-white districts.
This Court rejected that argument in Hays, explaining that evidence
sufficient to support an equal protection claim under Shaw v. Reno,
509 U. S. 630, with respect to a majority-minority district did not
prove anything with respect to a neighboring majority-white district
in which the appellees resided. Accordingly, an allegation to that effect
does not allege a cognizable injury under the Fourteenth Amendment.
515 U. S., at 746.
96 F. Supp. 2d 1301, vacated and remanded.
Per Curiam.
These cases involve a challenge to Alabama state legis-
lative districts under the equal protection principles an-
*Together with No. 00–133, Bennett, Secretary of State of Alabama,
et al. v. Kelley et al., also on appeal from the same court.

531US1 Unit: $$U4 [03-28-01 17:13:30] PAGES PGT: OPINBX
29 Cite as: 531 U. S. 28 (2000)
Per Curiam
nounced by this Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993).
Appellees, the plaintiffs below, are white Alabama voters
who are residents of various majority-white districts. The
districts in which appellees reside are adjacent to majority-
minority districts. All of the districts were created under a
state redistricting plan whose acknowledged purpose was
the maximization of the number of majority-minority dis-
tricts in Alabama. Appellants in No. 00–132 are a group of
African-American voters whose initial state lawsuit resulted
in the adoption of the redistricting plan at issue. Appellants
in No. 00–133 are Alabama state officials.
Appellees brought suit in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama challenging their own
districts as the products of unconstitutional racial gerry-
mandering. A three-judge court convened to hear the case
pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284. The District Court ulti-
mately held that seven of the challenged majority-white dis-
tricts were the product of unconstitutional racial gerryman-
dering and enjoined their use in any election. 96 F. Supp.
2d 1301 (MD Ala. 2000). On direct appeal to this Court pur-
suant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, appellants in both cases contend,
among other things, that appellees lack standing to maintain
this suit under our decision in United States v. Hays, 515
U. S. 737 (1995). We agree.
Hays involved a challenge to Louisiana’s districting plan
for its Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. The
plan contained two majority-minority districts. The appel-
lees lived in a majority-white district that bordered on one
of the majority-minority districts. The appellees challenged
the entire plan, including their own district, as an unconsti-
tutional racial gerrymander under our decision in Shaw v.
Reno, supra. United States v. Hays, 515 U. S., at 739–742.
We concluded that the appellees lacked standing to main-
tain their challenge. We assumed for the sake of argument
that the evidence was sufficient to state a Shaw claim with
respect to the neighboring majority-minority district. Id.,

531US1 Unit: $$U4 [03-28-01 17:13:30] PAGES PGT: OPINBX
30 SINKFIELD v. KELLEY
Per Curiam
at 746. But we concluded that the appellees had not shown
a cognizable injury under the Fourteenth Amendment be-
cause they did not reside in the majority-minority district
and had not otherwise shown that they had “personally been
denied equal treatment.” Id., at 744–746 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The appellees’ failure to show the requisite
injury, we noted, was not changed by the fact that the racial
composition of their own district might have been different
had the legislature drawn the adjacent majority-minority
district another way. Id., at 746.
Appellees’ position here is essentially indistinguishable
from that of the appellees in Hays. Appellees are chal-
lenging their own majority-white districts as the product
of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under a redis-
tricting plan whose purpose was the creation of majority-
minority districts, some of which border appellees’ districts.
Like the appellees in Hays, they have neither alleged nor
produced any evidence that any of them was assigned to his
or her district as a direct result of having “personally been
subjected to a racial classification.” Id., at 745; see also
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 904 (1996). Rather, appellees
suggest that they are entitled to a presumption of injury-
in-fact because the bizarre shapes of their districts reveal
that the districts were the product of an unconstitutional
racial gerrymander. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 120a, 148a,
153a.
The shapes of appellees’ districts, however, were neces-
sarily influenced by the shapes of the majority-minority dis-
tricts upon which they border, and appellees have produced
no evidence that anything other than the deliberate creation
of those majority-minority districts is responsible for the
districting lines of which they complain. Appellees’ sugges-
tion thus boils down to the claim that an unconstitutional
use of race in drawing the boundaries of majority-minority
districts necessarily involves an unconstitutional use of race
in drawing the boundaries of neighboring majority-white

531US1 Unit: $$U4 [03-28-01 17:13:30] PAGES PGT: OPINBX
31 Cite as: 531 U. S. 28 (2000)
Per Curiam
districts. We rejected that argument in Hays, explaining
that evidence sufficient to support a Shaw claim with respect
to a majority-minority district did “not prove anything” with
respect to a neighboring majority-white district in which the
appellees resided. 515 U. S., at 746. Accordingly, “an alle-
gation to that effect does not allege a cognizable injury under
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ibid.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the cases
are remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
It is so ordered.