Wisconsin voters challenged a legislative districting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, alleging that the plan packed and cracked Democratic voters statewide and diluted their ability to translate votes into legislative seats. After a trial court found the plan unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had not established Article III standing. A voter who claims vote dilution must show a concrete and personal injury tied to the district in which that voter lives; a statewide allegation that a map unfairly favors one party does not by itself establish an individual injury. The Court distinguished injury from remedy: a statewide restructuring may be necessary to remedy a personal district-specific injury, but it cannot substitute for proof of that injury. The Court nevertheless remanded rather than ordering immediate dismissal because the plaintiffs might be able to identify and prove a district-specific burden. The decision did not resolve whether partisan gerrymandering is judicially manageable or unconstitutional. Several Justices wrote separately, including a concurrence urging dismissal under the Court’s ordinary jurisdictional practice.