Peter Lee, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, California

In a case under Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630

1. (“Shaw claim”), and its progeny, alleging that a City Council racially gerrymandered new district boundaries, the central question is whether legislators drew boundaries with a predominant racial intent.

2. In such cases: (a) what is the test that governs the assertion of legislative privilege by state and local officials – especially in light of the tension between this Court’s decisions in United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (1980) and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266 (1977); and (b) if the privilege is qualified, is it overcome by direct and circumstantial evidence that race was likely the predominant factor in drawing boundary lines, including statements by key decision-makers that a district was created to include a specific racial makeup, expert opinion that the boundaries were based on race, and procedural irregularities in the redistricting process?

3. Even if a legislative privilege prevents discovery, does Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999), preclude summary judgment on a Shaw claim in the face of such direct and circumstantial evidence of racial intent because legislative motivation is a factual question for a jury to resolve?