''Shaw v. Hunt'', 517 U.S. 899 (1996), was a

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

case concerning redistricting and racial gerrymandering. This case and its predecessor, ''

Shaw v. Reno ''Shaw v. Reno'', 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-l ...

'', concerned North Carolina's congressional redistricting plans. The Court ruled in ''Shaw v. Hunt'' that the redistricting plan violated the

Equal Protection Clause The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "''nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal ...

of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background

In ''Shaw v. Reno'', the Supreme Court found that the complaint challenging a redistricting plan creating two unusually looking majority-minority congressional districts stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause, and thus remanded the case. The district court then held that the plan survived strict scrutiny and was constitutional. As a result, the constitutionality of this plan was brought before the Supreme Court again.

Decision

In a 5–4 decision delivered by Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court applied strict scrutiny to the plan, concluding that it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The Court found that none of the three compelling interests identified by the State was sufficient to survive strict scrutiny. For the first stated "interest in eradicating the effects of past discrimination," the Court upheld the district court's finding that this interest did not bring out the use of race in the plan; for the second claimed interest of complying with Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act The suffrage, Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of Federal government of the United States, federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President of the United ...

, the Court found that under a correct reading of the section, creating an additional majority-minority district was not required; for the third interest of avoiding liability under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibited dilution of minorities' voting strength, the Court found that the redistricting plan would not be able to remedy any such violation. This decision, however, left unanswered the question of whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act would provide a compelling interest for a state to engage in racial gerrymandering.

References

External links

* {{Caselaw source, case=''Shaw v. Hunt'', {{ussc, 517, 899, 1996, el=no, cornell=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-923.ZO.html, findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/517/899.html, justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/899/, oyez=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-923, googlescholar=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6355232701276003787&q=SHAW+et+al.+v.+HUNT&hl=en&as_sdt=8006, loc=https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep517899/ United States Supreme Court cases United States equal protection case law United States electoral redistricting case law Gerrymandering in the United States Legal history of North Carolina 1996 in United States case law United States racial discrimination case law Civil rights in the United States

Background

Decision

See also

References

External links