Supreme Court of the United States
Hunt v. Cromartie
May 17, 1999526 U.S. 541
Summary
The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thomas and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the legislative motive behind North Carolina's Twelfth Congressional District and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, filed a concurrence in the judgment, agreeing with the reversal but emphasizing the importance of political considerations, historical examples of political gerrymandering, and the need to view the district's shape as ambiguous evidence of racial intent.
Holding
- Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment on the claim that North Carolina's Twelfth Congressional District constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.. The Court held that the District Court erred; summary judgment was not appropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding legislative motive.
Docket 98-85
Cited authorities
- 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1359
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-201
- 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Cited by
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Slip Opinion)
- Frank McClellan v. Steven Smith
- Elizabeth Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
- Donna Rhea v. Alan Ritchey, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan and Alan Ritchey, Inc.
- Shannon Perez v. Greg Abbott — Smith, J., Dissenting
- Shannon Perez v. Greg Abbott
- State of Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, the Tribal Council, and the Tribal Governor Michael Silvas or His…
- Mugworld, Inc., Plaintiff/counter-Defendant v. G.g. Marck & Associates, Inc., Defendant/counter-Plaintiff