Search this site
Embedded Files
Essential Documents
  • Home
  • Foundational Documents
    • The Articles of Confederation
    • The Declaration of Independence
    • Federalist No. 10
    • Federalist No. 51
    • Federalist No. 70
    • Federalist No. 78
    • Brutus No. 1
    • The Constitution of the United States
    • Amdendments
      • Amendment 1
      • Amendment 2
      • Amendment 3
      • Amendment 4
      • Amendment 5
      • Amendment 6
      • Amendment 7
      • Amendment 8
      • Amendment 9
      • Amendment 10
      • Amendment 11
      • Amendment 12
      • Amendment 13
      • Amendment 14
      • Amendment 15
      • Amendment 16
      • Amendment 17
      • Amendment 18
      • Amendment 19
      • Amendment 20
      • Amendment 21
      • Amendment 22
      • Amendment 23
      • Amendment 24
      • Amendment 25
      • Amendment 26
      • Amendment 27
    • The Bill of Rights and Amendments
    • Letter from Birmingham Jail
  • SCOTUS Cases
    • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
    • United States v. Lopez (1995)
    • Engel v. Vitale (1962)
    • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
    • TInker v. Des Moines (1969)
    • New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
    • Schenck v. United States (1919)
    • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
    • Roe v. Wade (1973)
    • McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
    • Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
    • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
    • Baker v. Carr (1961)
    • Shaw v. Reno (1993)
    • Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Essential Documents
  • Home
  • Foundational Documents
    • The Articles of Confederation
    • The Declaration of Independence
    • Federalist No. 10
    • Federalist No. 51
    • Federalist No. 70
    • Federalist No. 78
    • Brutus No. 1
    • The Constitution of the United States
    • Amdendments
      • Amendment 1
      • Amendment 2
      • Amendment 3
      • Amendment 4
      • Amendment 5
      • Amendment 6
      • Amendment 7
      • Amendment 8
      • Amendment 9
      • Amendment 10
      • Amendment 11
      • Amendment 12
      • Amendment 13
      • Amendment 14
      • Amendment 15
      • Amendment 16
      • Amendment 17
      • Amendment 18
      • Amendment 19
      • Amendment 20
      • Amendment 21
      • Amendment 22
      • Amendment 23
      • Amendment 24
      • Amendment 25
      • Amendment 26
      • Amendment 27
    • The Bill of Rights and Amendments
    • Letter from Birmingham Jail
  • SCOTUS Cases
    • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
    • United States v. Lopez (1995)
    • Engel v. Vitale (1962)
    • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
    • TInker v. Des Moines (1969)
    • New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
    • Schenck v. United States (1919)
    • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
    • Roe v. Wade (1973)
    • McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
    • Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
    • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
    • Baker v. Carr (1961)
    • Shaw v. Reno (1993)
    • Marbury v. Madison (1803)
  • More
    • Home
    • Foundational Documents
      • The Articles of Confederation
      • The Declaration of Independence
      • Federalist No. 10
      • Federalist No. 51
      • Federalist No. 70
      • Federalist No. 78
      • Brutus No. 1
      • The Constitution of the United States
      • Amdendments
        • Amendment 1
        • Amendment 2
        • Amendment 3
        • Amendment 4
        • Amendment 5
        • Amendment 6
        • Amendment 7
        • Amendment 8
        • Amendment 9
        • Amendment 10
        • Amendment 11
        • Amendment 12
        • Amendment 13
        • Amendment 14
        • Amendment 15
        • Amendment 16
        • Amendment 17
        • Amendment 18
        • Amendment 19
        • Amendment 20
        • Amendment 21
        • Amendment 22
        • Amendment 23
        • Amendment 24
        • Amendment 25
        • Amendment 26
        • Amendment 27
      • The Bill of Rights and Amendments
      • Letter from Birmingham Jail
    • SCOTUS Cases
      • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
      • United States v. Lopez (1995)
      • Engel v. Vitale (1962)
      • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
      • TInker v. Des Moines (1969)
      • New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
      • Schenck v. United States (1919)
      • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
      • Roe v. Wade (1973)
      • McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
      • Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
      • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
      • Baker v. Carr (1961)
      • Shaw v. Reno (1993)
      • Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Facts of the case

The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Discussion

5-4 for Shaw

Majority Opinion:

Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances. After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded - adding that in the absence of contradictory evidence, the District Court would have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina's plan.

Dissenting Opinion:

"(1) That the case was brought by white voters challenging the district. Its boundaries had enabled the district's majority of black voters to elect the majority-white state's first black representatives to Congress since 1898, when George Henry White was re-elected to his second term in Congress from North Carolina's 2nd congressional district. (In 1899, after North Carolina Democrats passed a new state constitution to disfranchise blacks, White chose not to seek a third term in Congress. He told the Chicago Tribune, "I cannot live in North Carolina and be a man and be treated as a man." He moved to Washington, DC.)

(2) that the holding citing the 14th Amendment perversely made redistricting that advantaged blacks subject to more rigorous scrutiny than redistricting advantaging other non-racial groups, though the 14th amendment was intended to provide for equal protection for blacks after emancipation and abolition of slavery, and;

(3) that allowing race-based voting blocs is distinct from other forms of affirmative action, insofar as allowing race-based blocs does not deny another person her rights and privileges, as for example, race-based hiring and retention practices do."

Source: Wikipedia

Google Sites
Report abuse
Google Sites
Report abuse