Cooper v. Harris

• Decision Date: 22 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. 15–1262.,15–1262.
• Citation: 137 S.Ct. 1455,197 L.Ed.2d 837
• Parties: Roy COOPER, Governor of North Carolina, et al., appellants v. David HARRIS, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

137 S.Ct. 1455

197 L.Ed.2d 837

Roy COOPER, Governor of North Carolina, et al., appellants

v.David HARRIS, et al.

No. 15–1262.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Dec. 5, 2016.

Decided May 22, 2017.

Paul D. Clement, Washington, DC, for the appellants.

Marc E. Elias, Washington, DC, for appellees.

Nicole A. Saharsky, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the appellees.

Thomas A. Farr, Phillip J. Strach, Michael D. McKnight, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, NC, Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Michael D. Lieberman, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, Alexander M. Peters, North Carolina Department of Justice, for appellants.

Kevin J. Hamilton, William B. Stafford, Abha Khanna, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Caroline P. Mackie, Poyner Spruill LLP, Raleigh, NC, Marc E. Elias, John M. Devaney, Bruce V. Spiva, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, for appellees David Harris & Christine Bowser.

Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Constitution entrusts States with the job of designing congressional districts. But it also imposes an important constraint: A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason. In this case, a three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina officials violated that bar when they created two districts whose voting-age populations were majority black. Applying a deferential standard of review to the factual findings underlying that decision, we affirm.

I

A

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits racial gerrymanders in legislative districting plans. It prevents a State, in the absence of "sufficient justification," from "separating its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race." Bethune–Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct. 788, 797, 197 L.Ed.2d 85 (2017) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). When a voter sues state officials for drawing such race-based lines, our decisions call for a two-step analysis.

First, the plaintiff must prove that "race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district." Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995). That entails demonstrating that the legislature "subordinated" other factors—compactness, respect for political subdivisions, partisan advantage, what have you—to "racial considerations." Ibid. The plaintiff may make the required showing through "direct evidence" of legislative intent, "circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and demographics," or a mix of both. Ibid.¹

Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. See Bethune–Hill, 580 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 800. The burden thus shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a "compelling interest" and is "narrowly tailored" to that end. Ibid . This Court has long assumed that one compelling interest is complying with operative provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA or Act), 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq . See, e.g., Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 915, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (Shaw II ).

Two provisions of the VRA—§ 2 and § 5—are involved in this case. §§ 10301, 10304. Section 2 prohibits any "standard, practice, or procedure" that "results in a denial or abridgement of the right ... to vote on account of race." § 10301(a). We have construed that ban to extend to "vote dilution"—brought about, most relevantly here, by the "dispersal of [a group's members] into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minority of voters." Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46, n. 11, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). Section 5, at the time of the districting in dispute, worked through a different mechanism. Before this Court invalidated its coverage formula, see Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013), that section required certain jurisdictions (including various North Carolina counties) to pre-clear voting changes with the Department of Justice, so as to forestall "retrogression" in the ability of racial minorities to elect their preferred candidates, Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 47 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976).

When a State invokes the VRA to justify race-based districting, it must show (to meet the "narrow tailoring" requirement) that it had "a strong basis in evidence" for concluding that the statute required its action. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. ––––, ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1257, 1274, 191 L.Ed.2d 314 (2015). Or said otherwise, the State must establish that it had "good reasons" to think that it would transgress the Act if it did not draw race-based district lines. Ibid . That "strong basis" (or "good reasons") standard gives States "breathing room" to adopt reasonable compliance measures that may prove, in perfect hindsight, not to have been needed. Bethune–Hill, 580 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 802.

A district court's assessment of a districting plan, in accordance with the two-step inquiry just described, warrants significant deference on appeal to this Court.² We of course retain full power to correct a court's errors of law, at either stage of the analysis. But the court's findings of fact—most notably, as to whether racial considerations predominated in drawing district lines—are subject to review only for clear error. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6) ; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001) (Cromartie II ); id., at 259, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Under that standard, we may not reverse just because we "would have decided the [matter] differently." Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). A finding that is "plausible" in light of the full record—even if another is equally or more so—must govern. Id., at 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504.

B

This case concerns North Carolina's most recent redrawing of two congressional districts, both of which have long included substantial populations of black voters. In its current incarnation, District 1 is anchored in the northeastern part of the State, with appendages stretching both south and west (the latter into Durham). District 12 begins in the south-central part of the State (where it takes in a large part of Charlotte) and then travels northeast, zig-zagging much of the way to the State's northern border. (Maps showing the districts are included in an appendix to this opinion.) Both have quite the history before this Court.

We first encountered the two districts, in their 1992 versions, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993). There, we held that voters stated an equal protection claim by alleging that Districts 1 and 12 were unwarranted racial gerrymanders. See id., at 642, 649, 113 S.Ct. 2816. After a remand to the District Court, the case arrived back at our door. See Shaw II, 517 U.S. 899, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207. That time, we dismissed the challenge to District 1 for lack of standing, but struck down District 12. The design of that "serpentine" district, we held, was nothing if not race-centric, and could not be justified as a reasonable attempt to comply with the VRA. Id., at 906, 116 S.Ct. 1894 ; see id., at 911–918, 116 S.Ct. 1894.

The next year, the State responded with a new districting plan, including a new District 12—and residents of that district brought another lawsuit alleging an impermissible racial gerrymander. A District Court sustained the claim twice, but both times this Court reversed. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 119 S.Ct. 1545, 143 L.Ed.2d 731 (1999) (Cromartie I ); Cromartie II, 532 U.S. 234, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430. Racial considerations, we held, did not predominate in designing the revised District 12. Rather, that district was the result of a political gerrymander—an effort to engineer, mostly "without regard to race," a safe Democratic seat. Id., at 245, 121 S.Ct. 1452.

The State redrew its congressional districts again in 2001, to account for population changes revealed in the prior year's census. Under the 2001 map, which went unchallenged in court, neither District 1 nor District 12 had a black voting-age population (called a "BVAP") that was a majority of the whole: The former had a BVAP of around 48%, the latter a BVAP of around 43%. See App. 312, 503. Nonetheless, in five successive general elections conducted in those reconfigured districts, all the candidates preferred by most African–American voters won their contests—and by some handy margins. In District 1, black voters' candidates of choice garnered as much as 70% of the total vote, and never less than 59%. See 5 Record 636, 638, 641, 645, 647 (Pls. Exh. 112). And in District 12, those candidates won with 72% of the vote at the high end and 64% at the low. See id., at 637, 640, 643, 646, 650.

Another census, in 2010, necessitated yet another congressional map—(finally) the one at issue in this case. State Senator Robert Rucho and State Representative David Lewis, both Republicans, chaired the two committees jointly responsible for preparing the revamped plan. They hired Dr. Thomas Hofeller, a veteran political mapmaker, to assist them in redrawing district lines. Several hearings, drafts, and revisions later, both chambers of the State's General Assembly adopted the scheme the three men proposed.

The new map (among other things) significantly altered both District 1 and District 12. The 2010 census had revealed District 1 to be substantially underpopulated: To comply with the Constitution's one-person-one-vote principle, the State needed to place almost 100,000 new people within the district's boundaries. See App. 2690; Evenwel v....