Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Shaw v. Hunt

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionRacial GerrymanderingVoting Rights ActEqual Protection Clauseracial gerrymanderingstrict scrutinypredominant factor

Facts

After the 1990 census, North Carolina gained a twelfth congressional seat and first enacted a plan with one majority-black district. The Justice Department objected under § 5, criticizing the State for not creating a second majority-minority district, so the legislature adopted a revised plan creating District 12, an unusually long and irregular majority-black district in the Piedmont region. The State's preclearance submission said the revised plan's overriding purpose was to create two districts with effective black voting majorities, and the plan's principal draftsman testified that creating two majority-black districts was the principal reason for Districts 1 and 12. Two appellants lived in District 12, giving them standing to challenge only that district.

Issue

Whether North Carolina's District 12, drawn predominantly on the basis of race, survived strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, including compliance with §§ 2 or 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Rule

A racial gerrymander is subject to strict scrutiny when race is the predominant factor motivating the legislature's placement of voters, meaning traditional race-neutral districting principles were subordinated to racial considerations. Even assuming compliance with the Voting Rights Act may be a compelling interest, the race-based district must be narrowly tailored: the districting choice must at a minimum remedy the anticipated violation or achieve compliance, and compliance with § 5 cannot justify a district not reasonably necessary under a correct reading of that section.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After Illinois adopted a new congressional map, Omar Ellis, who lives in the challenged District 9 in Chicago, and Dana Mercer, who lives in neighboring District 8 in Aurora, sued alleging District 9 was drawn predominantly on the basis of race. Dana offers no evidence that her own district assignment was based on race.

Who has standing to press the racial-gerrymandering claim?

Explanation. A plaintiff residing in the challenged district has standing to contest that district's alleged racial classification. A plaintiff outside the district lacks standing absent specific evidence that she personally was assigned on the basis of race. The majority applied that rule to allow only residents of the challenged district to proceed.