Janet Reno for the Civil Rights Division, interposed a formal objection to the General Assembly's plan 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.
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering.The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of ...
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 20, 1993 in Shaw v. Reno William H. Rehnquist: We'll hear argument now in No. 92-357, Ruth O. Shaw v.
Shaw v. Reno is an important decision because it represents a conservative shift on the Court. Specifically, it signals a pulling away from using the Equal Protection Clause to benefit black Americans, and rather provides some fodder for those who want to claim that laws benefiting black Americans in particular constitute “ reverse ...
argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority, since equal protection analysis is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification, Richmond v.
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the 1993 case, Shaw v. Reno. The case deals with redistricting and racial gerrymandering.
Start studying Shaw v. Reno. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Search. Create. Log in Sign up. Log in Sign up. 12 terms. madison_gaona. Shaw v. Reno. STUDY. PLAY. ... Argument for Shaw. Holding and Reasoning (O'Connor, J.) Yes. A reapportionment plan violates the Equal Protection Clause if it ...
Shaw v. Reno. United States Supreme Court 509 U.S. 630 (1993) ... Shaw and several North Carolina residents (plaintiffs) challenged the redistricting plan in federal district court, arguing that the plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge panel of the district court dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiffs appealed to ...
gument is a subsidiary argument: Shaw's contribution to equal pro-tection jurisprudence is the recognition that racial classification is, in itself, presumptively invidious." Part I of this Note briefly sets out the relevant factual back- ground of the case. ... Shaw v. Reno, 113 S. Ct. 2816, 2820 (1993).
After the 1990 Census, North Carolina’s reapportionment plan was rejected becuase it only created one district with the minority as the majority. A US Attorney General forced them to create two black-majority districts. Although there were more minority-majority districts, one of