## Facts

- After the 1990 census, North Carolina gained a twelfth U.S. House seat and enacted a congressional redistricting plan with one majority-Black district.
- Because North Carolina was covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the plan required federal preclearance by the U.S. Attorney General.
- The Attorney General objected, asserting that a second district could be drawn to reflect minority voting strength.
- North Carolina adopted a revised plan with two majority-Black districts; the Twelfth District was long and highly irregular, tracking Interstate 85 for roughly 160 miles and sometimes no wider than the highway corridor.
- Five white registered voters sued, alleging the revised plan was a racial gerrymander that separated voters into districts primarily by race, disregarding traditional districting criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly dismissed the claims against federal officials, including the U.S. Attorney General, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether the complaint stated a justiciable Equal Protection claim by alleging that North Carolina’s plan was so irregular that it could be explained only as racial segregation in districting, even if the plan aimed to increase minority electoral opportunity and did not diminish whites’ statewide voting strength.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court agreed that dismissal of the claims against the federal defendants was proper.
- The Supreme Court (5–4) reversed dismissal of the Equal Protection claim against state defendants, holding that the voters stated a cognizable constitutional claim.
- The Court held that allegations of a reapportionment scheme so irrational on its face that it is understandable only as racial separation, without sufficient justification, require application of strict scrutiny.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings rather than finally determining whether the districts were constitutional.

## Legal Principles

- A redistricting plan that classifies voters predominantly by race can violate the Equal Protection Clause even if described as remedial or intended to enhance minority representation.
- Extreme, nontraditional district shapes may serve as strong circumstantial evidence that race predominated over neutral districting criteria.
- When race is the dominant and controlling consideration in drawing district lines, the plan is subject to strict scrutiny.
- To survive strict scrutiny, the State must show a compelling governmental interest (including potentially compliance with the Voting Rights Act or remedying discrimination) and that the use of race is narrowly tailored to that interest.
- The relevant injury is not limited to statewide vote dilution; it includes the constitutional harm of state-imposed racial classification and separation of voters for representational purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted an Equal Protection challenge to proceed where a congressional district’s extreme configuration plausibly indicated that race predominated in line-drawing, requiring strict scrutiny and a remand to determine whether the plan could be justified by a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.


Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)