October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1864

Does race drive North Carolina district lines?

Appellants claim race dominated district drawing. Appellees argue race did not drive the lines.

Official caption
Hunt v. Cromartie
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Dellinger argued the Constitution bars using race as the main factor.

    Mr. Stein argued the lower court made clearly erroneous factual findings.

    Mr. Stein cited a claim that a more compact district was possible.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether race controlled district boundaries.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 27, 2000.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Appellants want the Court to reverse the lower court.

Appellees want the Court to affirm the lower court.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Appellants argue race was the predominant factor in drawing lines.

Appellees argue the lower court correctly found race did not dominate.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Did the lower court make clearly erroneous factual findings?

Could a more compact district have been drawn without race?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines how states may draw legislative districts.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON