Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), is the Supreme Court decision that first allowed voters to challenge a redistricting plan under the Equal Protection Clause when a district’s shape is so irregular it can only be explained as an effort to sort voters by race. In a 5–4 ruling, the Court held that race-based redistricting of this kind must survive strict scrutiny. The case grew out of a North Carolina congressional map drawn after the 1990 Census, and it produced a district so narrow it was, in places, no wider than the interstate highway running through it.1Legal Information Institute. Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al.
Why North Carolina Redrew Its Map
The 1990 Census gave North Carolina a 12th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, up from 11.2North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. Could NC Add a US House Seat in 2030? The General Assembly drew a new congressional plan that contained one majority-Black district, the 1st Congressional District, in the northeastern part of the state where Black residents had long made up a large share of the population.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Because 40 North Carolina counties were covered jurisdictions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the state had to submit the plan for federal preclearance before it could take effect.4U.S. Department of Justice. Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5 The Attorney General, acting through the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, objected. The federal position was that the state could have created a second majority-Black district reflecting minority voting strength in the south-central to southeastern region.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) The General Assembly then went back and revised the plan.
What the 12th District Looked Like
The revised map kept the 1st District in the northeast and added a new 12th Congressional District through the middle of the state. The 12th District stretched roughly 160 miles along Interstate 85, and for much of that distance it was no wider than the highway corridor.1Legal Information Institute. Ruth O. Shaw, et al., Appellants v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. It threaded through Durham, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and Charlotte, connecting pockets of Black population in the Piedmont while cutting through counties and neighborhoods along the way.
The 1st District also took on an unusual form in the revised plan, extending south from its northeastern base through the Coastal Plain in disjointed arms that reached as far as Fayetteville and Wilmington. But the 12th drew the sharpest criticism. Its shape bore no resemblance to a traditional compact district and seemed to disregard geographic and community boundaries entirely. Those physical characteristics became the central evidence in the case.
The Lawsuit
Five white residents of Durham County, led by Ruth Shaw, sued in federal court, naming state officials and federal officials including Attorney General Janet Reno as defendants. They argued the 12th District was a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their theory was that the district’s shape could only be explained as an effort to segregate voters by race.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
A three-judge district court panel dismissed the case. Relying on United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, which had allowed race-conscious districting in a similar context, the panel reasoned that favoring minority voters to comply with the Voting Rights Act was not discriminatory in a constitutional sense. Because white voters were not proportionally underrepresented statewide, the panel concluded there was no valid equal protection claim.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed, 5–4. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. The Court held that the plaintiffs had stated a valid equal protection claim and sent the case back for a full trial.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
The new principle at the center of the decision was this: when a redistricting plan is so bizarre on its face that it cannot be explained on grounds other than race, it demands the same strict judicial scrutiny as any other law that classifies people by race. O’Connor drew on Gomillion v. Lightfoot, the 1960 case in which Alabama redrew Tuskegee’s boundaries to exclude nearly all Black voters from the city. A congressional district whose shape makes sense only as a racial sorting mechanism raises the same constitutional concerns, she wrote.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
The majority went further in explaining why this kind of line-drawing troubled the Court. A district that groups people of the same race who are otherwise separated by geography, community ties, and political interests sends a message that members of a racial group all think alike and want the same things from government. That assumption, the majority wrote, “bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid.” It can also warp representation: when a district is obviously drawn to serve one racial group’s perceived interests, elected officials are more likely to see themselves as representing only that group.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
The Court did not strike the district down. It remanded with instructions: if the racial gerrymandering allegations survived at trial, the lower court would have to decide whether the plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Complying with the Voting Rights Act could qualify as a compelling interest, the majority acknowledged, but that did not give states unlimited license to draw racially driven districts.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
The Dissents
Four justices dissented, each writing separately. Justice White, joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens, argued that the plaintiffs had shown no actual harm. In his view, an equal protection challenge to redistricting required proof that the plan had both the purpose and the effect of diminishing a group’s political influence, and white voters were not underrepresented in North Carolina’s congressional delegation as a whole. White also read the case as indistinguishable from UJO v. Carey and would have affirmed the dismissal.3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Justice Stevens took a different angle. If states can draw district lines to give adequate representation to rural voters, union members, or ethnic communities, he reasoned, they should equally be permitted to do so for the racial minority group whose history gave rise to the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Souter argued that the majority was creating a new and unworkable standard by treating a district’s shape alone as sufficient grounds for an equal protection claim. The split laid bare a deeper disagreement about whether the Constitution treats race-conscious efforts to include minority voters the same as race-conscious efforts to exclude them.
What Happened After Shaw v. Reno
On remand, the lower court upheld North Carolina’s plan after a full trial. The case came back to the Supreme Court as Shaw v. Hunt in 1996, and this time the Court struck down the 12th District. The district was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, the majority found. Compliance with Section 5 did not justify it because a second majority-Black district was not actually required under a correct reading of the statute. The Court also rejected reliance on Section 2, noting that the district was not geographically compact enough to support a vote dilution theory.5Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996)
Two years after Shaw v. Reno, the Court refined the framework in Miller v. Johnson, a case involving Georgia’s congressional districts. Miller clarified that a district does not need to look bizarre on a map to trigger an equal protection challenge. Shape can be strong circumstantial evidence that race drove the mapmaking, but the real test is whether race was the predominant factor behind the legislature’s decision to place voters inside or outside a district. Plaintiffs can meet that burden by showing that legislators subordinated traditional districting principles like compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions to racial considerations.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
Together, these cases built the modern framework for racial gerrymandering claims. Before Shaw v. Reno, voters had no established path to challenge a redistricting plan simply because race dominated the line-drawing process.7Constitution Annotated. Amdt14.S1.8.6.6 Racial Vote Dilution and Racial Gerrymandering After it, any redistricting plan where race is the predominant factor must survive strict scrutiny, meaning the state must prove the plan serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it. That standard still governs redistricting challenges today.