Shaw v. Reno addressed racial gerrymandering and held that such schemes can be challenged in court under which principle?

Shaw v. Reno addressed racial gerrymandering and held that such schemes can be challenged in court under which principle?

• A. Judicial restraint
• B. Due process only
• C. Racial gerrymandering cannot be challenged
• D. Equal Protection

Answer: (D)

Racial classifications by state action are governed by the Equal Protection Clause, so Shaw v. Reno rests on strict scrutiny of how districts are drawn. When a redistricting plan uses race as the predominant factor in creating boundaries, it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. If it isn’t, the plan violates equal protection. That’s why racial gerrymandering is something plaintiffs can challenge in court under the Equal Protection Clause. It isn’t about due process, nor about judicial restraint, and the idea that such schemes cannot be challenged is inconsistent with the decision.

Racial classifications by state action are governed by the Equal Protection Clause, so Shaw v. Reno rests on strict scrutiny of how districts are drawn. When a redistricting plan uses race as the predominant factor in creating boundaries, it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. If it isn’t, the plan violates equal protection. That’s why racial gerrymandering is something plaintiffs can challenge in court under the Equal Protection Clause. It isn’t about due process, nor about judicial restraint, and the idea that such schemes cannot be challenged is inconsistent with the decision.