Miller v. Johnson
E422400
United States Supreme Court case
constitutional law case
legal case
racial gerrymandering case
redistricting case
Miller v. Johnson is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the doctrine on racial gerrymandering and the Equal Protection Clause in legislative redistricting.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Miller v. Johnson canonical | 3 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4229556 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Miller v. Johnson Context triple: [Shaw v. Reno, precedentFor, Miller v. Johnson]
-
A.
Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v. Chambers is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer, finding that opening legislative sessions with a state-funded chaplain’s invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause.
-
B.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
E.
Ray v. Blair
Ray v. Blair is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state's authority to require presidential electors to pledge support for their party's nominees as a condition of appointment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Miller v. Johnson Target entity description: Miller v. Johnson is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the doctrine on racial gerrymandering and the Equal Protection Clause in legislative redistricting.
-
A.
Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v. Chambers is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer, finding that opening legislative sessions with a state-funded chaplain’s invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause.
-
B.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
E.
Ray v. Blair
Ray v. Blair is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state's authority to require presidential electors to pledge support for their party's nominees as a condition of appointment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ legal case ⓘ racial gerrymandering case ⓘ redistricting case ⓘ |
| arguedDate | January 17, 1995 ⓘ |
| citation | 515 U.S. 900 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Equal Protection Clause
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | June 29, 1995 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| fullName | Miller v. Johnson ⓘ |
| holding |
A redistricting plan in which race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
ⓘ
Georgia’s Eleventh Congressional District, drawn with race as the predominant factor, violated the Equal Protection Clause. ⓘ
linked to:
Georgia's 11th congressional district
|
| impact |
clarified that states cannot subordinate traditional districting principles to race without satisfying strict scrutiny
ⓘ
further developed the doctrine on racial gerrymandering in legislative redistricting ⓘ limited the extent to which race can be used as a factor in drawing electoral districts ⓘ |
| issue |
whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can justify race-based districting under the Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
whether race was the predominant factor in the creation of a congressional district ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
congressional redistricting ⓘ racial gerrymandering ⓘ voting rights ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| party |
James A. Johnson
ⓘ
Ruth B. Miller ⓘ |
| precedentOf |
Bush v. Vera
ⓘ
Shaw v. Hunt ⓘ |
| relatedToCase | Shaw v. Reno ⓘ |
| relatedToStatute | Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the district court affirming the challenge to Georgia’s Eleventh District was affirmed ⓘ |
| standardOfReview | strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | Georgia ⓘ |
| term | October Term 1994 ⓘ |
| topic |
United States congressional districts
ⓘ
linked to:
United States federal electoral districts
election law ⓘ race-conscious districting ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Miller v. Johnson Description of subject: Miller v. Johnson is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the doctrine on racial gerrymandering and the Equal Protection Clause in legislative redistricting.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.