In the United States v. Hays et al., 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs challenging a racially gerrymandered district must prove they live within its boundaries to have standing. The case arose from Louisiana's redistricting plan following the 1990 census, which created a majority-black congressional district (District 4). Several white voters filed suit alleging racial gerrymandering in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, none of them lived in District 4; instead, they resided in adjacent districts whose boundaries had been altered due to creation of District 4. The court held that unless these voters could show direct harm by proving they lived within the challenged district or were personally subjected to a racial classification, they lacked standing to pursue their claim.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hays et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case was premature and inconsistent with prior rulings. He contended that, even if a plaintiff does not live in a racially gerrymandered district, they can still suffer harm from its existence due to its impact on state politics as a whole. Therefore, he believed such plaintiffs should have standing to challenge racial gerrymandering under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, Justice Stevens criticized how quickly his colleagues dismissed this complex issue without allowing it full consideration at trial court level first.