The Texas Legislature had developed a state-of-the-art computer system, RedApl, that allowed it to draw congressional districts using racial data at the census block level.

Plaintiffs Al Vera, Edward Blum, Polly Orcutt, Ken Powers, Barbara Thomas, and Ed Chen challenged 24 of the state's 30 congressional districts as racial gerrymanders.

The Court, in a plurality opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, found that the plan was subject to strict scrutiny as it was an impermissible racial gerrymander.

She repeated what the Court had said in Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson: Strict scrutiny applies where "redistricting legislation .

Justice O'Connor further noted that: "[B]izarre shape and noncompactness cause constitutional harm insofar as they convey the message that political identity is, or should be, predominantly racial.

[C]utting across pre-existing precinct lines and other natural or traditional divisions, is not merely evidentially significant; it is part of the constitutional problem insofar as it disrupts nonracial bases of identity and thus intensifies the emphasis on race."

In an unusual move, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurrence to her own opinion in which she expressed her view on two points: first, compliance with the results test of §2 of the Voting Rights Act is a compelling state interest, and second, that the test can co-exist in principle and in practice with Shaw v. Reno and its progeny.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined in the plurality opinion, wrote separately to express his view that anytime a district is drawn with a pre-ordained racial composition that strict scrutiny would apply.