North Carolina v. Covington, 585 U.S. 969

Background

After finding North Carolina’s 2011 legislative maps racially gerrymandered, the District Court entered a remedial order; this Court previously affirmed liability but vacated parts of the remedy and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand the General Assembly submitted remedial 2017 maps and instructed map drawers not to use racial data and to avoid pairing incumbents.
Plaintiffs challenged four remedial districts (Senate 21, 28; House 21, 57) as continuations of unconstitutional racial sorting and objected that five House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg were unnecessarily redrawn (arguing state-law mid‑decade redistricting prohibition).
The District Court appointed a Special Master, who produced alternative remedial plans; the court found the four challenged districts remained racial gerrymanders, adopted the Special Master’s replacements, and enjoined the legislature’s maps for those districts.
The District Court also invalidated the legislature’s redrawing of certain Wake and Mecklenburg House districts as violating North Carolina’s mid‑decade redistricting ban.
This Court granted partial stay as to Wake and Mecklenburg implementation, heard direct appeal, and summarily affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s remedial order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to enter remedial order after legislature repealed old plans	Plaintiffs contended claims remained live because some new districts were mere continuations of old racial gerrymanders	Defendants argued repeal mooted the suit—no live controversy once legislature adopted new maps	Court: District Court retained jurisdiction; plaintiffs alleged continued racial segregation in specific districts so controversy remained live
Whether the 2017 remedial districts can constitute racial gerrymanders though legislature instructed drawers not to consider race	Plaintiffs relied on circumstantial evidence (district shape/demographics) showing race predominated	Defendants claimed no racial consideration in 2017 maps, so plaintiffs’ challenges fail	Court: Shape/demographics provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for four districts; nondisclosure of racial data didn’t negate findings
Whether appointing a Special Master and adopting his race‑conscious remedial plans was an abuse of discretion	Plaintiffs supported court‑drawn remedy to cure continued racial gerrymanders	Defendants argued legislature should be given another opportunity and that Special Master used racial quotas	Court: Appointment and adoption were not abuse; Special Master’s use of race‑related data to remediate was permissible and not quota‑driven
Whether District Court properly overturned legislature’s redrawing of Wake/Mecklenburg districts based on state constitutional mid‑decade redistricting ban	Plaintiffs argued those redraws were unnecessary and violated state prohibition	Defendants argued they had authority and redraws were part of remedial plan required by federal law	Court: Reversed District Court as to these districts—federal court erred by enforcing state constitutional ban and overriding legislature once federal remedial needs were satisfied

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary equitable relief and reviewing exercise of discretion)
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (racial gerrymandering claims arise from segregation of voters into districts on basis of race)
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (proof of racial gerrymandering may rely on circumstantial evidence of district shape and demographics)
Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (1982) (federal courts should not unnecessarily interfere with state redistricting choices)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (federal courts must consider orderly process and election timing when ordering remedies)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (scope of remedial authority tied to plaintiffs’ injuries)
White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973) (state legislatures have primary jurisdiction over legislative reapportionment)
Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (legislative freedom to devise substitutes for unconstitutional apportionment should not be restricted beyond federal law)
North Carolina v. Covington, 581 U.S. (2017) (per curiam) (prior summary disposition addressing aspects of remedy)
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. (2015) (plaintiffs have standing to challenge racial gerrymanders only in districts where they reside)