October Term 2015 · Docket 14-232

Does the Constitution allow small population differences in state districts?

Appellants argue the Arizona map violates equal protection. The state argues Voting Rights Act compliance justifies the variance.

Official caption
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
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.
  2. — 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

    Appellants argue the map violates equal protection.

    The state argues the variance is constitutionally permitted.

    The state claims Voting Rights Act compliance explains the design.

    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

Appellants want the Court to strike down the Arizona map. They claim unequal populations violate the Equal Protection Clause. The state wants the map to stand. It argues the variance serves a valid federal purpose.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 8, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Appellants want the Court to invalidate the Arizona map.

The state wants the Court to uphold the Arizona map.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Appellants argue unequal populations violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The state argues de minimis deviations are permitted by the Constitution.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if appellants contest the predominant motive finding.

Justice Kennedy asked if appellants want to overturn the factual finding.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of population equality in redistricting. It determines whether states can deviate from perfect equality. The outcome shapes how states 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