Race in congressional maps

1. Did the court below err in presuming racial predominance from North Carolina’s reasonable reliance on this Court’s holding in Strickland that a district created to ensure that African Americans have an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidate of choice complies with the VRA if it contains a numerical majority of African Americans? 2. Did the court below err in applying a standard of review that required the State to demonstrate its construction of CD 1 was "actually necessary" under the VRA instead of simply showing it had "good reasons" to believe the district, as created, was needed to foreclose future vote dilution claims? 3. Did the court below err in relieving plaintiffs of their burden to prove "race rather than politics" predominated with proof of an alternative plan that achieves the legislature's political goals, is comparably consistent with traditional redistricting principles, and brings about greater racial balance than the challenged districts? 4. Regardless of any other error, was the three-judge court's finding of racial gerrymandering violations based on clearly erroneous fact-finding? 5. Did the court below err in failing to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as being barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion? 6. In the interests of judicial comity and federalism, should the Court order full briefing and oral argument to resolve the split between the court below and the North Carolina Supreme Court which reached the opposite result in a case raising identical claims?