Answer:
1. A difference between League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry and Shaw v. Reno is that Shaw v. Reno was a dispute over an irregularly shaped district that suppressed minority, specifically Black, voters. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry was also a dispute over legislative districts, but it was between the Plaintiffs and Republicans. In Shaw v. Reno, the district in question was declared unconstitutional, whereas the districts discussed in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry were not declared unconstitutional. Another difference is that the argument in Shaw v. Reno was that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was violated, but in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the argument was that the Voting Rights Act was violated.
2. The ruling on District 23 in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry was different from the ruling on I-85 in Shaw v. Reno because it was not ruled unconstitutional, whereas, in Shaw v. Reno, I-85 was ruled unconstitutional because it disproportionately affected Black voters. In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the Supreme Court also ruled that district maps could be redrawn at any time as long as it was redrawn every 10 years. Even though Latino voters became a minority of voting citizens in District 23, it was still declared constitutional.
3. The Supreme Court was concerned about getting into the “political thicket” in relation to the separation of powers because the Supreme court is supposed to be free from political influences, so the Supreme Court had to make a decision that did not favor one party over another. The Supreme Court has the authority to declare things constitutional or unconstitutional, only the judicial branch can do this, enforcing the principle of separation of powers.