Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey v. Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.
The Court, in a plurality opinion, upheld the District Court's ruling for the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering in the redistricting was not unconstitutional.· AI-written
541 U.S. 267 · No. 02-1580 · 2003 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Apr 28, 2004 · argued Dec 10, 2003
Judicial power · Standing to sue: justiciable question
Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2003 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Antonin ScaliaWrote the majority opinion
Anthony KennedyWrote a concurrence
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
John StevensWrote a dissent
David SouterWrote a dissent
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan FureyVoter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)
- Respondent
- Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.Political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (composition of the House of Representatives)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 28, 2004DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey lost.
- Dec 10, 2003ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: justiciable question, newest first.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioner v. Betty Dukes et al.564 U.S. 338Jun 20, 2011 · 564 U.S. 338Judicial power5–45–4 band
- National Park Hospitality Association v. Department of the Interior et al.538 U.S. 803May 27, 2003 · 538 U.S. 803Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Arthur Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Troy Ashmus, etc.523 U.S. 740May 26, 1998 · 523 U.S. 740Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Ohio Forestry Association, Inc. v. Sierra Club, et al.523 U.S. 726May 18, 1998 · 523 U.S. 726Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Eloise Anderson, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Deshawn Green, Debby Venturella and Diana P. Bertollt, etc.513 U.S. 557Feb 22, 1995 · 513 U.S. 557Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Walter L. Nixon v. United States et al.506 U.S. 224Jan 13, 1993 · 506 U.S. 224Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, et al. v. Morgan et al.413 U.S. 1Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 1Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Poe et al. v. Ullman, State's Attorney367 U.S. 497Jun 19, 1961 · 367 U.S. 497Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, Inc., et al.356 U.S. 309Apr 28, 1958 · 356 U.S. 309Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Nukk et al. v. Shaughnessy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.350 U.S. 869Oct 24, 1955 · 350 U.S. 869Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGRATH, Attorney General, et al.341 U.S. 123Apr 30, 1951 · 341 U.S. 123Judicial power5–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.