Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

In 2011, Virginia redrew its state legislative districts after the census. A group of voters led by Golden Bethune-Hill sued, alleging that 12 majority-Black districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. The legislature had employed a fixed 55% Black Voting Age Population target, which plaintiffs argued violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld the districts, ruling that race was not the predominant motive because the districts also adhered to traditional districting principles. On March 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision, holding that the lower court applied an incorrect legal standard. The Supreme Court clarified that a district can be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander even if it follows traditional criteria, and the proper inquiry is whether race was the predominant factor. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case. The Court ruled that the district court's analysis was flawed because it required plaintiffs to show that traditional districting criteria could not explain the map. Instead, the proper test examines whether race was the predominant motive, regardless of whether the resulting districts can also be justified by traditional principles. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion; Justice Gorsuch took no part in the case.

Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard when it determined that race was not the predominant factor in the creation of 12 Virginia House of Delegates districts, and whether it erroneously required challengers to prove the districts conflict with traditional redistricting principles.

The ruling reaffirmed and clarified the legal framework for racial gerrymandering claims, making it easier for plaintiffs to challenge districting maps. It emphasized that compliance with traditional redistricting criteria does not automatically immunize a map from constitutional scrutiny if race was the predominant factor. The decision influenced subsequent redistricting litigation nationwide and underscored the judiciary's role in policing racial discrimination in the electoral process.