Shaw v. Reno
United States Supreme Court
509 U.S. 630, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
In North Carolina, 78 percent of voters were white, and 20 percent were black. The black population was largely concentrated in the northern Coastal Plain region. Based on the 1990 census, the North Carolina legislature created a new redistricting plan that included one majority black congressional district centered in the Coastal Plain region. The U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno (defendant), objected to the plan based on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In response, North Carolina created a second majority black congressional district, which is 160 miles long and unusually shaped, winding through the I-85 corridor, crossing 10 counties, and dividing towns. Shaw and several North Carolina residents (plaintiffs) challenged the redistricting plan in federal district court, arguing that the plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge panel of the district court dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Blackmun, J. )
Dissent (Souter, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
