October Term 2016 · Docket 15-1262

Did race or politics drive North Carolina district lines?

North Carolina officials and voters dispute whether race or politics shaped two congressional maps.

Official caption
McCrory v. Harris
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

    Paul Clement argued four judges found politics drove the lines.

    Ms. Saharsky argued the district looks terrible and race may have driven it.

    Justice Kagan asked if the court should require plaintiffs to draw maps.

    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

North Carolina officials and voters dispute whether race or politics shaped two congressional maps.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2016.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

North Carolina officials want the court to find politics drove the lines.

Voters want the court to find race drove the lines.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Officials argue four judges found politics was the main motive.

Voters argue the district judge credited race as the main motive.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if the court credited one witness over another.

Justice Kagan asked if the court should require plaintiffs to draw maps.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how courts weigh race against politics in redistricting. It sets the standard for proving discriminatory intent. It affects how states draw future legislative lines.

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