509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Upon the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a twelfth seat in the House of Representatives.1
The General Assembly passed an initial reapportionment plan that included only one majority-black district.2 The Attorney General interposed an objection under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.3 The objection stated that the plan could have included a second majority-minority district in the south-central to southeastern area with boundary lines no more irregular than those elsewhere in the proposal.4
Subsequently, the General Assembly enacted a revised plan creating District 12 as the second majority-black district along the Interstate 85 corridor in the north-central region.5 The district extends roughly 160 miles, often no wider than the highway itself, snaking through diverse areas and incorporating sufficient black population enclaves to achieve a majority.6 It splits multiple counties into three districts each, divides towns, and maintains contiguity at one location only by intersecting other districts at a single point.7
Appellants are five residents of Durham County, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that county.8 Under the plan, two plaintiffs vote in District 12 and three in District 2.9 They alleged that the General Assembly deliberately created the districts along racial lines, arbitrarily concentrating black voters without regard to compactness, contiguity, or political subdivisions.10
The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds related to the Voting Rights Act and dismissed the claims against the state appellees by a 2-1 vote.11 The majority held that the complaint failed to state an equal protection claim because the plan did not dilute white voting strength and was adopted to comply with the Voting Rights Act.12 The dissenting judge concluded that the irregular shape supported an inference of unlawful intent sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss.13
The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.14
Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that a State has drawn district lines that are so bizarre on their face that they are unexplainable on grounds other than race?15
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State, without sufficient justification, from separating its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race.16 Racial classifications are immediately suspect and must be subjected to the most exacting judicial scrutiny.17 An allegation that a State has assigned voters on the basis of race is sufficient to state a claim of racial gerrymandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.18
Yes. The plaintiffs alleged that the redistricting legislation is so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate voters by race.19 The facts establish that District 12 runs approximately 160 miles along Interstate 85, winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas, splits counties and towns, and maintains contiguity only by intersecting other districts at a single point. These specific characteristics of the district lines support the allegation that race was the predominant factor in drawing the district lines, making the plan subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the legislature's motive.20
The plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Blackmun And Stevens
Justice White dissented because appellants failed to allege any cognizable injury under the Equal Protection Clause.22 They did not claim that their votes had been diluted or that they belonged to a minority group whose voting strength had been submerged.23 Instead they merely objected to the district's shape and the use of race to create a majority-black district.24
In his view the majority's new theory rested on the erroneous premise that a bizarrely shaped district drawn with race in mind is per se unconstitutional.25 That approach ignored both the realities of the redistricting process and the history of discrimination that the Voting Rights Act was enacted to remedy.26 Because the plan left white voters with a substantial majority of the state's congressional seats, no equal-protection violation had been stated.27
Justice Blackmun joined Justice White's dissent in full.28 He wrote separately to stress that compliance with the Voting Rights Act constitutes a compelling governmental interest that justifies the creation of majority-minority districts.29
The Attorney General's objection to the first plan was lawful, and North Carolina's revised plan represented a reasonable effort to satisfy federal requirements.30 The majority's newly announced standard, he concluded, would render it virtually impossible for states to draw such districts without inviting protracted litigation, thereby reversing progress toward a fully integrated society.31
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that the majority confused the constitutional standards governing racial gerrymandering with those governing vote dilution.32 The bizarre shape of District 12 was not itself a constitutional violation.33
What matters is whether the district was drawn with the purpose and effect of discriminating against a racial group.34 Here the purpose was to increase the political power of a racial minority that had long suffered discrimination.35 Such a purpose does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.36
Justice Souter dissented because no justification existed for carving out this narrow category of bizarrely shaped districts for strict scrutiny while applying a different regime to other race-conscious districting claims.37 Under established precedent, an equal-protection violation in the districting context requires a showing that the plan has the purpose and effect of diluting a racial group's voting strength.38
Without an allegation of such concrete harm, further scrutiny is unnecessary.39 The majority's approach therefore departed from settled law without adequate reason.40
Whether the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint against state officials for failure to state an equal protection claim?41
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State, without sufficient justification, from separating its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race. An allegation that a State has assigned voters on the basis of race is sufficient to state a claim of racial gerrymandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
Yes. The District Court erred in dismissing the complaint.42 The plaintiffs alleged that the redistricting legislation is so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate voters by race. The facts establish that District 12 runs approximately 160 miles along Interstate 85, winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas, splits counties and towns, and maintains contiguity only by intersecting other districts at a single point.
These specific characteristics of the district lines support the allegation that race was the predominant factor in drawing the district lines, making the plan subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the legislature's motive.
The District Court erred in dismissing the complaint against state officials for failure to state an equal protection claim.43