Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 6/5/2017

North Carolina v. Convington

Citations

  • 581 U.S. 486
  • 198 L. Ed. 2d 110
  • 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3553
  • 137 S. Ct. 1624
  • 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 629
  • 85 U.S.L.W. 4321
  • 2017 WL 2407467

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that the Supreme Court has never addressed whether a special election may be a proper remedy for an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and reversing a federal district court that ordered special elections without adequately weighing the interests at stake
  • noting that the Supreme Court has never addressed whether a special election may be a proper remedy for an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and reversing a federal district court that ordered special elections without adequately weighing the interests at stake
  • reminding us that, in fashioning injunctive relief, courts must balance “what is necessary, what is fair, and what is workable”
  • “Relief in redistricting cases is fashioned in the light of well-known principles of equity.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • first quoting NAACP v. Hampton Cnty. Election Comm’n, 470 U.S. 166, 183 n.36 (1985), and then quoting New York v. Cathedral Acad., 434 U.S. 125, 129 (1977)
  • discussion of the equities involved in ordering special elections in redistricting context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.