October Term 2016 · Docket 15-680

Does a racial target alone trigger strict scrutiny?

Appellants argue a 55 percent floor violates the Constitution. Appellees claim the district court wrongly required a conflict with traditional principles.

Official caption
Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections
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

    Mr. Elias argued the district court created a new legal standard.

    Mr. Gornstein argued a racial target does not trigger strict scrutiny.

    Mr. Clement described the 2011 redistricting as a bipartisan success.

    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

Virginia redrew its House of Delegates districts in 2011. The state applied a 55 percent racial floor to twelve districts. Appellants claim this practice violates the Equal Protection Clause. Appellees argue the district court correctly applied the law. The Supreme Court must define the legal standard for racial gerrymandering claims.

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

Appellants want the Court to strike down the 55 percent racial floor.

Appellees want the Court to affirm the district court's legal standard.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Appellants argue the district court invented a new legal standard.

Appellees argue a racial target alone does not trigger strict scrutiny.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked if avoiding a Voting Rights Act violation equals predominance.

Justice Breyer asked if traditional districting factors were irrelevant in this case.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines when racial targets trigger strict scrutiny. It shapes how states draw legislative districts. It balances voting rights with equal protection. It sets the standard for future redistricting litigation.

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