Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Shaw v. Reno Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1993Docket #218482
125 L. Ed. 2d 511 113 S. Ct. 2816 509 U.S. 630 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4406 Constitutional Law Election Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: White voters challenged North Carolina’s bizarrely shaped, majority-black congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court held that such a district, if unexplainable on grounds other than race, states a valid Equal Protection claim subject to strict scrutiny.

Legal Significance: Established a new, “analytically distinct” Equal Protection claim against racial gerrymandering. A redistricting plan’s bizarre shape can, on its face, trigger strict scrutiny, even without proof of discriminatory effect or vote dilution, by suggesting impermissible racial segregation of voters.

Shaw v. Reno Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Following the 1990 census, North Carolina gained a twelfth congressional seat. The state legislature submitted a reapportionment plan with one majority-black district to the U.S. Attorney General for preclearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Attorney General objected, stating that a second majority-black district could have been created. In response, the legislature enacted a revised plan creating a second majority-black district, District 12. This district was highly irregular, stretching 160 miles along an interstate highway corridor, in some places no wider than the highway itself. It connected geographically separate, predominantly black neighborhoods while disregarding county lines and traditional districting principles like compactness and contiguity. A group of white voters (appellants) sued, alleging that the plan was a racial gerrymander that segregated voters based on race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They did not allege that the plan diluted their voting strength. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a reapportionment plan that is so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause, even without an allegation of vote dilution?

Yes. The Court held that appellants stated a claim under the Equal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia des

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a reapportionment plan that is so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause, even without an allegation of vote dilution?

Conclusion

This landmark decision established that racial gerrymandering claims can be brought under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni

Legal Rule

A plaintiff states a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat

Legal Analysis

Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, established a new cause of action Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqu

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A plaintiff states a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum do

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Make crime pay. Become a lawyer.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+