Citation network
Shaw Vs. Reno
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 20, 1993
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 630 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Shaw Et Al. V. RenoSearch
-
the state appellees, finding, among other things, that, under United Jewish Organizations of Williams burgh, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
S. 252 , 266-must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. See, e. g., Wy gant v. JacksonSearch
-
race demands the same close scrutiny, regardless of the motivations underlying its adoption. See, e. g., Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
Shaw v. BarrSearch
-
in Federal District Court, alleging that the plan constituted an unconstitutional political gerrymander under Davis v. BandemerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 109 (1986). That claim was dismissed, see Pope v. BlueSearch
-
F. Supp. 392 (WDNC), and this Court summarily affirmed, 506 U. S. 801 (1992). Shortly after the complaint in Pope v. BlueSearch
-
principle, see Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
challenged the Attorney General's preclearance decisions, their claim was foreclosed by this Court's holding in Morris v. GressetteSearch
-
at 468-469. That claim, the majority concluded, was barred by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
in a manner that was alleged to exclude black voters, and only black voters, from the city limits. Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
persisted in parts of this country nearly a century after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. See South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
Allen v. StateSearch
-
are adopted with a discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. See, e. g., Rogers v. LodgeSearch
-
see Thornburg v. GinglesSearch
-
see also Voinovich v. QuilterSearch
-
Constitution, see Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
purpose is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
is necessary when the racial classification appears on the face of the statute. See Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
U. S. 256 , 272 (1979). Accord, Washington v. SeattleSearch
-
Hirabayas hi v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 320 U. S. 81 , 100 (1943). Accord, Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
because of their race to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. See, e. g., Wygant v. JacksonSearch
-
is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only 644 upon an extraordinary justification. Brown v. BoardSearch
-
as well to a classification that is ostensibly neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
Guinn v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Lane v. WilsonSearch
-
other state laws that classify citizens by race. Our voting rights precedents support that conclusion. In Guinn v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
their adoption. The Court extended the reasoning of Gomillion to congressional districting in Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
emphasize that these criteria are important not because they are constitutionally required-they are not, cf. Gaffney v. CummingsSearch
-
objective factors that may serve to defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines. Cf. Karcher v. DaggettSearch
-
at the polls. We have rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes. See, e. g., Holland v. IllinoisSearch
-
see also Ed monson v. LeesvilleSearch
-
antithetical to our system of representative democracy. As Justice Douglas explained in his dissent in Wright v. RockefellerSearch
-
the challenged practice has the purpose and effect of diluting a racial group's voting strength. See, e. g., Rogers v. LodgeSearch
-
Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
WHITE, J.). This Court has held political gerrymanders to be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. See Davis v. BandeSearch
-
classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally. See Powers v. OhioSearch
-
See Growe v. EmisonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial