Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (Supreme Court of the United States)
Shaw v. Reno is the foundational modern case on racial gerrymandering.
Does a state redistricting plan that creates irregularly shaped districts in a manner suggesting race was the predominant factor state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause that must be reviewed under strict scrutiny, notwithstanding Voting Rights Act preclearance?
Racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny. A redistricting plan, though facially neutral, is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause if race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a district. Bizarre district shape and departures from traditional districting principles are evidence that race predominated. Under strict scrutiny, the state must show that its use of race is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. Voting Rights Act compliance may be a compelling interest, but the use of race must still be narrowly tailored and cannot amount to racial balancing or maximization.
Yes. The plaintiffs stated a cognizable Equal Protection claim. Districts that are so irregular that they can be understood only as efforts to separate voters by race are subject to strict scrutiny. The district court's dismissal was reversed and the case was remanded for determination whether the plan could satisfy strict scrutiny. Voting Rights Act preclearance does not insulate the plan from constitutional review.
Shaw created the modern racial gerrymandering doctrine. It established that a facially neutral redistricting plan will undergo strict scrutiny when race predominates, with bizarre shape serving as potent, though not dispositive, evidence. After Shaw, the Court in Miller v. Johnson, Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), and Bush v. Vera clarified that Voting Rights Act compliance may be a compelling interest but that the state must show narrow tailoring, including fidelity to traditional districting principles and a strong basis in evidence of potential VRA liability. Shaw also distinguished racial gerrymandering claims from vote dilution claims under the VRA, which use the Gingles framework, and from partisan gerrymandering, which the Court later held nonjusticiable in federal court. For law students, Shaw is essential to understanding equal protection limits on the use of race in redistricting and the delicate balance between ensuring minority opportunity and avoiding unconstitutional racial sorting.