Shaw v. Hunt
E422401
Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Shaw v. Hunt canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4229557 — 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. Hunt Context triple: [Shaw v. Reno, precedentFor, Shaw v. Hunt]
-
A.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
D.
Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v. Chambers is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer, finding that opening legislative sessions with a state-funded chaplain’s invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause.
-
E.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
- 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. Hunt Target entity description: Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
-
A.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
D.
Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v. Chambers is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer, finding that opening legislative sessions with a state-funded chaplain’s invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause.
-
E.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
legal case ⓘ |
| affectedEntity | North Carolina congressional districts NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| aroseFrom | North Carolina congressional redistricting ⓘ |
| aroseIn | North Carolina NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| basedOn | Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation | 517 U.S. 899 ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decidedBy | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1996 ⓘ |
| dissentingJustice |
David H. Souter
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 94-923 ⓘ |
| extends | Shaw v. Reno NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| follows | Shaw v. Reno NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Shaw et al. v. Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
North Carolina’s revised congressional redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
race was the predominant factor in drawing certain congressional districts in North Carolina ⓘ the State’s use of race in redistricting was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest ⓘ |
| issue | whether North Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering ⓘ |
| joinedMajorityJustice |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
avoiding retrogression under the Voting Rights Act is not, by itself, a sufficient compelling interest to justify racial gerrymandering
ⓘ
compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not automatically justify race-based districting ⓘ racial classifications in redistricting are subject to strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
constitutional law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ racial gerrymandering ⓘ redistricting ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| publicationType | judicial opinion ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence
ⓘ
Voting Rights Act interpretation ⓘ racial gerrymandering jurisprudence ⓘ |
| relatedTo | Shaw v. Reno NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| standardApplied | strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| subsequentCitationBy |
Bush v. Vera
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Easley v. Cromartie NERFINISHED ⓘ Miller v. Johnson NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| timePeriod | Rehnquist Court NERFINISHED ⓘ |
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. Hunt Description of subject: Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.