Shaw v. Reno

E94544

Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.

AI illustration

How this image was made

AI-generated illustration of Shaw v. Reno

This AI-generated illustration was produced by black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-dev (1024x1024) from a prompt written by openai/gpt-oss-120b from the entity's label + description.

Prompt

Generate an image of Shaw v. Reno (Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.)

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
landmark voting rights case ⓘ
areaOfLaw constitutional law ⓘ
election law ⓘ
redistricting law ⓘ
arguedDate 1993-04-20 ⓘ
citation 509 U.S. 630 ⓘ
concerns congressional redistricting ⓘ
majority-minority districts ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1993-06-28 ⓘ
decisionType majority decision ⓘ
defendant Janet Reno ⓘ
dissentBy Byron R. White ⓘ
David H. Souter ⓘ
Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
docketNumber 92-357 ⓘ
fullName Shaw v. Reno, Attorney General ⓘ
linked to: Shaw v. Reno
holding Bizarrely shaped, race-based districts may violate the Equal Protection Clause even if they were created to enhance minority voting strength ⓘ
Race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing legislative districts without satisfying strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ
impact established that race-based districting can be unconstitutional even when intended to benefit minority voters ⓘ
limited the use of race in legislative redistricting ⓘ
joinedByInMajority Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
jurisdiction federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
languageOfRecord English ⓘ
legalIssue Equal Protection Clause ⓘ
racial gerrymandering ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Sandra Day O'Connor ⓘ
originatingState North Carolina ⓘ
pageInUnitedStatesReports 630 ⓘ
plaintiff Ruth O. Shaw ⓘ
precedentFor Bush v. Vera ⓘ
Miller v. Johnson ⓘ
Shaw v. Hunt ⓘ
relatedStatute Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ
result North Carolina congressional redistricting plan was subject to Equal Protection challenge ⓘ
standardOfReview strict scrutiny ⓘ
subsequentHistory case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion ⓘ
topic racial classification in legislative districting ⓘ
shape of electoral districts ⓘ
volumeOfUnitedStatesReports 509 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (11)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Equal Protection Clause → basisFor → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Shaw v. Reno → fullName → Shaw v. Reno, Attorney General ⓘ
linked to: Shaw v. Reno
Fred Gray → notableWork → Tuskegee gerrymandering case ⓘ
linked to: Shaw v. Reno
Miller v. Johnson → relatedToCase → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Shaw v. Hunt → relatedTo → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Shaw v. Hunt → follows → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Shaw v. Hunt → extends → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Bush v. Vera → appliesPrecedent → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Bush v. Vera → extendsPrinciplesOf → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Ruth O. Shaw → knownFor → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ
Ruth O. Shaw → partyTo → Shaw v. Reno ⓘ