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.
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 ...
Case name Citation Date decided Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist. 509 U.S. 1: 1993: Helling v. McKinney: 509 U.S. 25: 1993: Reno v. Catholic Social Services ...
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.
The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), [176] the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic under-representation in the state's congressional delegations. [177] In Pitts v.
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.
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 ...
North Carolina drew a new map following Shaw v. Hunt, and the new maps were challenged in turn. A three-judge panel of the Eastern District of North Carolina granted summary judgment that the new boundaries were an illegal racial gerrymander. [7] This was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in Hunt v.