v. Sebelius. North Carolina Voting Rights Cases In 2014, Wynn wrote the majority opinion preliminarily enjoining portions of a North Carolina law that denied minority groups equal access to voting. League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014). Wynn was later a member of a panel that held that the provisions of the law that required photo identification to vote, reduced early-voting opportunities, and eliminated out-of-precinct voting, same-day registration, and pre-registration, were enacted with discriminatory intent, and thus, were unconstitutional. North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). The majority held that the North Carolina General Assembly's "new provisions target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision." Wynn wrote the section of the majority opinion as to remedy, permanently enjoining the State from implementing the unconstitutional provisions. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Fourth Circuit's holding in place. Partisan Gerrymandering In August 2018, Wynn wrote the majority opinion for a three-judge district court panel striking down North Carolina's congressional districts on grounds that the state's 2016 districting plan constituted a partisan gerrymander in violation of Article I of the Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Common Cause v. Rucho, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777 (M.D.N.C. 2018). The Supreme Court vacated Wynn's opinion, holding that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question because there are no "judicially manageable standards" with which to measure political gerrymandering. Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019). Wynn has been outspoken about his disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision. Long v. Hooks, 972 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc) In 1976, an all-white North Carolina jury convicted a Black man, Ronnie Long, of raping a white woman. Decades later, new evidence that had not been disclosed to the defense came to light. The defendant sought habeas relief. The en banc majority remanded the case to the district court for further consideration. Wynn authored a concurring opinion, arguing that the court should grant immediate relief. Wynn reasoned that no reasonable jury could convict the defendant based on the new evidence. During oral arguments, Wynn questioned why, if the State's goal was to seek justice, it was not willing to look at the new evidence. He also called attention to the racial dynamics at play. The case involved police officers failing to disclose key evidence and lying