Shaw v. Reno
E94544
Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Shaw v. Reno canonical | 1 |
| Shaw v. Reno, Attorney General | 1 |
| Tuskegee gerrymandering case | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T752716 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Shaw v. Reno Context triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Shaw v. Reno]
-
A.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
-
B.
Lynch v. Donnelly
Lynch v. Donnelly is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the inclusion of a nativity scene in a city’s Christmas display and helped shape modern Establishment Clause analysis of government endorsement of religion.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Smith v. Allwright
Smith v. Allwright was a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down racially exclusive primary elections, significantly advancing African American voting rights.
-
E.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Shaw v. Reno Target entity description: Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.
-
A.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
-
B.
Lynch v. Donnelly
Lynch v. Donnelly is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the inclusion of a nativity scene in a city’s Christmas display and helped shape modern Establishment Clause analysis of government endorsement of religion.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Smith v. Allwright
Smith v. Allwright was a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down racially exclusive primary elections, significantly advancing African American voting rights.
-
E.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark voting rights case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ redistricting law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1993-04-20 ⓘ |
| citation | 509 U.S. 630 ⓘ |
| concerns |
congressional redistricting
ⓘ
majority-minority districts ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1993-06-28 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority decision ⓘ |
| defendant | Janet Reno ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
David H. Souter ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 92-357 ⓘ |
| fullName |
Shaw v. Reno
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Shaw v. Reno, Attorney General
|
| holding |
Bizarrely shaped, race-based districts may violate the Equal Protection Clause even if they were created to enhance minority voting strength
ⓘ
Race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing legislative districts without satisfying strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ |
| impact |
established that race-based districting can be unconstitutional even when intended to benefit minority voters
ⓘ
limited the use of race in legislative redistricting ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
racial gerrymandering ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Sandra Day O’Connor
ⓘ
surface form:
Sandra Day O'Connor
|
| originatingState | North Carolina ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 630 ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Ruth O. Shaw ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
Bush v. Vera
ⓘ
Miller v. Johnson ⓘ Shaw v. Hunt ⓘ |
| relatedStatute | Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| result | North Carolina congressional redistricting plan was subject to Equal Protection challenge ⓘ |
| standardOfReview | strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion ⓘ |
| topic |
racial classification in legislative districting
ⓘ
shape of electoral districts ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 509 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Shaw v. Reno Description of subject: Shaw v. Reno is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the use of race in legislative redistricting by holding that bizarrely shaped, race-based districts can violate the Constitution.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Shaw v. Reno, Attorney General
this entity surface form:
Tuskegee gerrymandering case