The Court ruled in Shaw v. Hunt that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[1][2] In Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court found that the complaint challenging a redistricting plan creating two unusually looking majority-minority congressional districts stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause, and thus remanded the case.

[3] In a 5–4 decision delivered by Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause.

[4] The Court applied strict scrutiny to the plan, concluding that it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

[3] This decision, however, left unanswered the question of whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act would provide a compelling interest for a state to engage in racial gerrymandering.