This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Appellants, the case McCrory v. Harris concerns the constitutionality of two congressional districts in North Carolina.
Justices asked questions about the application of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, retrogression, and the standard of review.
The parties argued that the district maps were drawn based on partisan considerations rather than race.
- [1] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 24
- [3] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 35
- [4] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 39
- [5] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 20
- [6] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 57
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Kennedy, the legal question presented involves whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires a contiguous district and how strict scrutiny applies.
According to Justice Kagan, another issue is whether the State provided evidence that the map was necessary to avoid retrogression under Section 5.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the Court also considered whether the “plain error” standard applies to the three‑judge court’s factual findings.
What each side argues
Appellant (Governor McCrory) Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Appellee (David Harris) Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor made a brief interjection.
Justice Kennedy asked how far Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires a contiguous district under strict scrutiny.
Justice Breyer asked whether the district in question was District 12.
Justice Kagan asked whether the State ever produced evidence that the map was necessary to avoid a retrogression problem under Section 5.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the “plain error” standard should govern review of the three‑judge court’s findings.
According to JUSTICE KAGAN, justice Kagan noted that the Court had not received a response to her question.
- [1] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 20
- [2] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 24
- [3] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 28
- [4] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 35
- [5] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdf, p. 60
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4753ff9d3270e438b52d-r1-05f4867845496e3e.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.