of how binding this DoJ pre-clearance actually is, here's a little recent history:

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census
There were a number of lawsuits related to the North Carolina 2000 census redistricting process, including Bartlett v. Strickland, which made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.[24]

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., Feb. 20, 2002) : On February 15, 2002, four days after the Justice Department told the State that its House and Senate district plans met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, a state court ruled that the plans violated a provision of the state constitution that requires counties to be kept whole when drawing state legislative districts. The court requested the parties to submit a proposed deadline for the General Assembly to redraw the districts and offered to draw a remedial plan for the 2002 election if the deadline was not met or if so directed by the appellate court.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94P02 (N.C. Feb. 26, 2002) : Without lifting the stay of the Superior Court order holding the North Carolina State House and Senate plans enacted in 2001 to be unconstitutional by dividing too many counties, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered an expedited appeal schedule.

Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson I), No. 94PA02, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (Apr. 30, 2002), stay denied 535 U.S. 1301 (May 17, 2002) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, in chambers) : The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the superior court holding that North Carolina State Senate and State House plans were unconstitutional because of a state constitutional provision saying that no counties could be divided, but said that the no-divided-counties provision has limited applicability. The district court was ordered to hold an expedited hearing on whether the General Assembly was capable of redrawing the districts in time for the 2002 election. If not, the district court was authorized to impose a temporary plan of its own for use in the 2002 election, subject to being precleared.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., May 31, 2002) : After the General Assembly enacted new House and Senate plans on May 17, Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins threw them out and drew his own.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94PA02 (N.C. June 4, 2002) : The North Carolina Supreme Court denied the State’s request to stay enforcement of the Superior Court’s order and a motion to expedite hearing the State’s appeal.

Board of Elections v. United States, No. 02-1174 (D.D.C. June 27, 2002) : The complaint sought preclearance for both the North Carolina Supreme Court decision of April 30, 2002 in the Stephenson case and the interim plans adopted by the Superior Court. A three-judge panel said that the federal court in two pending cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina would have authority to grant relief. The court noted that the Department of Justice would have a decision on the Section 5 submittals of the Stephenson case and the Jenkins plan by the week of July 8, 2002.

Sample v Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 , (E.D. N.C. July 2, 2002) : A three-judge court unanimously denied the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction to conduct the 2002 state legislative election under the precleared legislatively-enacted 2001 plan, rather than the interim state court ordered plan. On July 12, 2002, the Department of Justice precleared both the new interpretation of the North Carolina constitutional requirement to preserve whole counties announced in the Stephenson decision and the new legislative districts drawn by Judge Jenkins.

Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson II), No. 94PA02-2, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (July 16, 2003) : On July 16, 2003, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court holding both Senate and House plans invalid.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 358 N.C. 219, 595 S.E.2d 112 (Apr. 22, 2004) : On November 25, 2003, along with the new legislative redistricting plan it enacted in compliance with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision of July 16, 2003, the General Assembly enacted a new law that any action involving redistricting lies exclusively with the Superior Court, Wake County and that legal challenges to legislative redistricting plans must be heard by a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. If a court were to find a redistricting plan flawed, the General Assembly would have to be given an opportunity to correct any defects before the court imposed a substitute plan. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law.

Pender County v. Bartlett, No. 103A06, 361 N.C. 491, 649 S.E.2d 364 (Aug. 24, 2007), aff’d sub nom. Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : The 2003 General Assembly legislative redistricting plan was challenged by Pender County, which was divided between House Districts 16 and 18. A three-judge panel decided that dividing Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed.

Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : On appeal, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the Court held that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require creation of a district in which a minority population has a fair opportunity to elect a representative of its choice if the minority would constitute less than a majority of the voting age population in the district.