QQuestionLaw School Admission Test
QuestionLaw School Admission Test
"Must-Know Supreme Court Case: Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Tasks:
Identify two potentially conflicting constitutional principles at issue in this case.
Explain how the Court justified its reasoning in the majority opinion.
Describe a similarity and difference between the opinion in Shaw v. Reno and the opinion in Gomillion v. Lightfoot."
5 months agoReport content
Answer
Full Solution Locked
Sign in to view the complete step-by-step solution and unlock all study resources.
Step 1
The two potentially conflicting constitutional principles at issue in Shaw v. Reno (1993) are the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from denying equal protection under the law to any person within its jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aims to eliminate discriminatory voting practices and procedures, particularly in states with a history of racial discrimination.
Step 2
In the majority opinion, the Court justified its reasoning by asserting that race could not be the predominant factor in creating a voting district, even when the Voting Rights Act was the motivation behind the redistricting. The Court held that such a practice violated the Equal Protection Clause, as it treated voters differently based on their race. The Court emphasized that the creation of a majority-minority district must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.
Final Answer
In Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court dealt with the conflicting constitutional principles of the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. The Court held that race-based redistricting plans that created bizarrely shaped districts violated the Equal Protection Clause, even if they were motivated by the Voting Rights Act. This decision shares similarities with Gomillion v. Lightfoot, where the Court also struck down a racially gerrymandered district. However, the legal contexts of the two cases differ, as Shaw v. Reno was decided after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, requiring the Court to balance its goals with the Equal Protection Clause.
Need Help with Homework?
Stuck on a difficult problem? We've got you covered:
- Post your question or upload an image
- Get instant step-by-step solutions
- Learn from our AI and community of students