| Shaw v. Reno | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 20, 1993 Decided June 28, 1993 | |
| Full case name | Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States et al. |
| Citations | 509 U.S. 630 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2816; 125 L. Ed. 2d 511; 61 U.S.L.W. 4818; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4406 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. 461 (E.D.N.C. 1992) |
| Subsequent | On remand, Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.C. 1994); reversed, 517 U.S. 899 (1996); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999); Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001). |
| Holding | |
| Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Dissent | White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens |
| Dissent | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Souter |
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. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.[2]
Shaw v. Reno was an influential case and received backlash. Some southern states filed against majority-Black districts. This decision played a role in deciding many future cases, including Bush v. Vera and Miller v. Johnson. However, the phrasing of irregularly drawn districts has left room for much interpretation, letting judges use their opinions rather than relying on Shaw.
- ^ "Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:0was invoked but never defined (see the help page).