Shaw V Reno 1993 Google Docs Pdf Case Background 1 Identify The

Shaw V Reno 1993 Google Docs Pdf Case Background 1 Identify The Reno, 509 u.s. 630 (1993) appellants stated an equal protection claim by alleging that north carolina's reapportionment scheme was so irrational on its face that it could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters based on race, and that separation lacks sufficient justification. october term, 1992. syllabus. In a 5–4 decision, the u.s. supreme court decided in favor of shaw, and sent the case back to the lower court to be reheard. justice o’connor authored the majority decision, which was joined by chief justice rehnquist and justices scalia, kennedy, and thomas. justices white, blackmun, stevens, and souter dissented. majority.

Copy Of Shaw V Reno Background Pdf Shaw V Reno 19 Ask the chatbot a question ask the chatbot a question shaw v. reno, legal case in which the u.s. supreme court ruled (5–4) on june 28, 1993, that electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be adequately explained except as examples of racial gerrymandering, or efforts to segregate voters on the basis of race, can be challenged as potential violations of the equal protection clause of the. View shaw v. reno (1993) google docs.pdf from econ 102 at south lyon east high school. case background 1. identify the plaintiff and defendant in the case. the appellant was shaw and the appellee. Reno (1993) shaw v. reno. 509 u.s. 630. case year: 1993. case ruling: 5 4, reversed and remanded. opinion justice: o'connor. facts. as a result of the 1990 census, north carolina gained one congressional seat, increasing its house membership to twelve and requiring the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts. Following is the case brief for shaw v. reno, 509 u.s. 630 (1993) case summary of shaw v. reno: the state of north carolina, in response to the u.s. attorney general’s objection that it had only one majority black congressional district, created a second majority black district. five white north carolina voters sued, alleging that the state.