Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. [1] After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner to create a "majority-minority" Black district.
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that "the legacy of official discrimination ... acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of "cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice."
The court first recognized the justiciability of affirmative "racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (1993). [181] In Miller v. Johnson (1995), [182] the court explained that a redistricting plan is constitutionally suspect if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines. For race to ...
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment 's guarantee of freedom of speech. [1] This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the ...
The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I) (1993), [60] holding that plaintiffs "may state a claim by alleging that [redistricting] legislation, though race neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different ...
Shaw v. Reno was a United States Supreme Court case involving a claim that North Carolina's 12th congressional district (pictured) was affirmatively racially gerrymandered. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause and is a justiciable matter. However, the ...
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.
Shaw v. Reno: 506 U.S. 630 (1993) appropriateness of considering race in redistricting Reno v. Flores: 507 U.S. 292 (1993) procedures for detaining juvenile aliens awaiting deportation Saudi Arabia v. Nelson: 507 U.S. 349 (1993) jurisdiction in an action based upon a "commercial activity" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Cincinnati v.