Cooper v. Harris
| Cooper v. Harris | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 5, 2016 Decided May 22, 2017 |
|
| Full case name | Roy Cooper, Governor of North Carolina, et al., appellants vs. David Harris, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 15-1262 |
| Citations | 581 U.S. ___ (more)
136 S. Ct. 2512
|
| Prior history | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| Holding | |
| North Carolina relied too heavily on race in redrawing two Congressional districts after the 2010 Census (M.D.N.C. affirmed) | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts and Kennedy |
| Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
|
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Voting Rights Act of 1965 |
|
Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a case by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled 5–3 that the North Carolina General Assembly used race too heavily in re-drawing two Congressional districts following the 2010 Census.
At issue in particular were the 1st and 12th districts. Voters in Mecklenburg County asserted that the 1st was "akin to a Rorschach ink blot," and that the 12th, though 120 miles long, at times "averag[ed] only a few miles wide." The 12th had already been a part of several cases that went to the Supreme Court.
On February 5, 2016, the three-judge United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina found that both districts were unconstitutional due to the predominance of racial considerations in their creation, in which Circuit Judge Roger Gregory was joined by Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr., over the dissent of Judge William Lindsay Osteen Jr. regarding District 12.
On December 5, 2016, oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court, where Paul Clement appeared for the governor, Marc Elias appeared for the voters, and an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General appeared as a friend in support of the voters.
The state argued that the African-American population of the districts was increased in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but the Court found that argument "does not withstand strict scrutiny" for the 1st district, as its African-American population had previously been less than a majority of its voters, yet African-Americans' "preferred candidates scored consistent victories."
...
Wikipedia