Cooper v. Harris
137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state violates the Equal Protection Clause when it uses race as the predominant factor in drawing congressional districts without a compelling interest. Compliance with the Voting Rights Act is not a compelling interest where there is no strong basis in evidence to believe race-based districting is necessary, such as when a district already functions as a successful 'crossover' district where minority-preferred candidates consistently win.
Facts:
- After the 2000 census, North Carolina's congressional map featured District 1 with a Black Voting-Age Population (BVAP) of approximately 48% and District 12 with a BVAP of approximately 43%.
- In five consecutive general elections from 2002 to 2010 under that map, the candidates preferred by African-American voters won handily in both districts.
- Following the 2010 census, North Carolina legislators Senator Robert Rucho and Representative David Lewis hired Dr. Thomas Hofeller to redraw the state's congressional map.
- The legislators publicly stated their goal and instructed Dr. Hofeller to draw District 1 with a BVAP over 50%, believing it was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
- To meet the racial target for District 1, mapmakers extended its boundaries to incorporate heavily black parts of Durham, increasing the district's BVAP from 48.6% to 52.7%.
- For District 12, mapmakers reconfigured the district by adding certain areas and removing others, resulting in a net gain of 35,000 black voters and a net loss of 50,000 white voters.
- These changes to District 12 increased its BVAP from 43.8% to 50.7%, making it a majority-minority district.
- Senator Rucho privately told Congressman Mel Watt, who represented District 12, that legislative leadership had instructed him to increase the district's BVAP to over 50% to comply with the VRA.
Procedural Posture:
- David Harris and Christine Bowser, registered voters, sued North Carolina officials in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
- Plaintiffs alleged that the 2011 congressional redistricting plan created unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in District 1 and District 12.
- A three-judge panel was convened at the trial court level to hear the case.
- After a bench trial, the District Court found that race was the predominant factor in the drawing of both districts and that the state lacked a compelling interest to justify its use of race.
- The District Court held both districts unconstitutional.
- The State of North Carolina filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does North Carolina's 2011 redrawing of Congressional Districts 1 and 12, which increased the black voting-age population in both to over 50%, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by making race the predominant factor in their design without a compelling justification?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
Yes, North Carolina's redrawing of both districts violates the Equal Protection Clause. With respect to District 1, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that race was the predominant factor, as legislators admittedly used a 50%+ BVAP racial target that subordinated other traditional districting criteria. The state's proffered justification—compliance with Section 2 of the VRA—failed strict scrutiny because the state lacked a 'strong basis in evidence' for its action. The prior version of District 1 was a successful 'crossover' district where black-preferred candidates consistently won, which demonstrated that the third Gingles precondition (white bloc voting sufficient to defeat minority candidates) was absent. The state's reading of VRA jurisprudence was a legal error. For District 12, the District Court's factual finding that race predominated over politics was not clearly erroneous. This conclusion was supported by substantial direct evidence, including legislators' public statements citing VRA compliance, their preclearance submission to the Department of Justice, and the credible trial testimony of Congressman Mel Watt. Furthermore, a plaintiff is not required to submit an alternative, race-neutral map to prove racial predominance; such a map is merely one evidentiary tool, not a prerequisite to prevailing on the claim.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes, the Court correctly applies precedent to find the districts unconstitutional. North Carolina's concession that it intentionally created District 1 as a majority-black district is sufficient by itself to trigger strict scrutiny. Furthermore, Section 2 of the VRA does not apply to redistricting and therefore cannot justify a racial gerrymander. Regarding District 12, the District Court did not clearly err, and today's decision represents a 'welcome course correction' to the Court's misapplication of the clear-error standard in Easley v. Cromartie (Cromartie II).
Concurring/dissenting - Justice Alito
No, with respect to District 12, the redistricting does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and the lower court should be reversed. The majority improperly discards the binding precedent from Cromartie II, which required plaintiffs in a race-versus-politics case to produce an alternative map that achieves the legislature's political goals with greater racial balance. The plaintiffs here failed to do so, and their claim should have failed. The District Court's finding of racial predominance was clearly erroneous because the state offered a coherent and strong political explanation for District 12's lines: it was a partisan gerrymander designed to pack Democratic voters into one district to make surrounding districts more Republican. Given the high correlation between race and party affiliation in North Carolina, this political strategy inevitably resulted in a higher concentration of black voters, a fact the majority wrongly interprets as evidence of a predominantly racial motive.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the demanding standard for states seeking to justify racial gerrymanders with VRA compliance, particularly holding that a successful crossover district negates the need for a remedial majority-minority district under Section 2. It significantly narrows the Court's prior holding in Cromartie II, establishing that plaintiffs are not required to present an alternative, race-neutral map to prove that race predominated over politics. This lowers a potential evidentiary barrier for plaintiffs, making it easier to challenge districting plans in states where race and political affiliation are highly correlated, so long as other strong direct or circumstantial evidence of racial intent exists.
Unlock the full brief for Cooper v. Harris