Previous 46 / 68 Next

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 15 GINSBURG, J., dissenting that preclearance lessened the litigation burden on cov ered jurisdictions themselves, because the preclearance process is far less costly than defending against a §2 claim, and clearance by DOJ substantially reduces the likelihood that a §2 claim will be mounted. Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act’s Temporary Provisions: Policy Perspectives and Views From the Field: Hearing before the Subcommit tee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 13, 120–121 (2006). See also Brief for States of New York, California, Mississippi, and North Carolina as Amici Curiae 8–9 (Section 5 “reduc[es] the likelihood that a jurisdiction will face costly and protracted Section 2 litigation”). The number of discriminatory changes blocked or de terred by the preclearance requirement suggests that the state of voting rights in the covered jurisdictions would have been significantly different absent this remedy. Sur veying the type of changes stopped by the preclearance procedure conveys a sense of the extent to which §5 con tinues to protect minority voting rights. Set out below are characteristic examples of changes blocked in the years leading up to the 2006 reauthorization:  In 1995, Mississippi sought to reenact a dual voter registration system, “which was initially enacted in 1892 to disenfranchise Black voters,” and for that reason, was struck down by a federal court in 1987. H. R. Rep. No. 109–478, at 39.  Following the 2000 census, the City of Albany, Georgia, proposed a redistricting plan that DOJ found to be “designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased black voting strength . . . in the city as a whole.” Id., at 37 (internal quota tion marks omitted).

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Shelby County v. Holder

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act — which determined which jurisdictions were subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 — remained constitutionally valid after Congress reauthorized it in 2006 without updating the formula, given that the formula was based on decades-old data (voter registration and turnout from the 1960s and early 1970s) and practices (literacy tests) that had since been banned nationwide. More broadly, whether the formula violated the constitutional principle of equal sovereignty among the states by subjecting only certain jurisdictions to the extraordinary federal intrusion of preclearance.

Alleged Acts: Shelby County, Alabama, a jurisdiction covered by the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirements, filed a facial constitutional challenge against Section 5 and Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 required covered jurisdictions to obtain federal approval (preclearance) from either the Department of Justice or a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court before implementing any change in voting procedures. Section 4(b) contained the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to Section 5—based on whether the jurisdiction had used a "test or device" to restrict voting (such as a literacy test) and had voter registration or turnout below 50% in the 1960s and early 1970s. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years, maintaining both the preclearance requirement (Section 5) and the original coverage formula (Section 4(b)) without updating the formula to reflect current conditions. Shelby County argued that the coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data and eradicated practices, violating the principles of federalism and equal sovereignty among the states.

Procedural history: The district court denied Shelby County's motion for discovery, holding that a facial challenge to the VRA's 2006 reauthorization must be evaluated solely on the legislative record compiled by Congress. After briefing, the three-judge district court panel upheld both Section 5 and Section 4(b), finding that the extensive legislative record compiled by Congress demonstrated "current needs" justifying the 2006 reauthorization. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court, applying the two-part test from Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (2009): (1) whether Section 5's current burdens are justified by current needs, and (2) whether the disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently supported. The court found both prongs satisfied.

Summary: Shelby County v. Holder is one of the most consequential voting rights decisions in modern American history. The Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula (Section 4(b)) of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional because it relied on data and practices from the 1960s and 1970s that no longer reflected current conditions. While the Court did not formally invalidate Section 5's preclearance requirement, by striking down the formula that determined which jurisdictions were covered, it effectively rendered preclearance inoperable. The decision was grounded in the principles of federalism and equal sovereignty, with the Court holding that the extraordinary federal intrusion into state electoral processes was no longer justified by current conditions. The ruling dramatically changed the landscape of voting rights enforcement in the United States, as previously covered jurisdictions were immediately freed from preclearance obligations and could implement voting changes without prior federal approval. The decision left it to Congress to enact a new coverage formula based on contemporary data, but as of 2026, Congress has not done so. The case has been cited as a critical precedent in subsequent voting rights litigation, including Brnovich v. DNC (2021) and Allen v. Milligan (2023).

Conclusion: In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and held that Section 4(b)'s coverage formula was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The Court held that Section 4(b)'s coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data and eradicated practices that no longer reflected current conditions. The Court reaffirmed the principle of equal sovereignty — that states must be treated equally by the federal government — and held that the coverage formula's extraordinary departure from the traditional federal-state balance was no longer justified. Applying the Northwest Austin standard, the Court held that regardless of the VRA's past success, "past success alone... is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements." The Act imposes current burdens that must be justified by current needs, and the stale coverage formula failed this test.

Legal Issue(s)

Elections as a Fundamental Right
Electoral Administration Irregularities
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Voting Rights Act of 1965, Tenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 25, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/case.pdf

Primary Documents

Shelby County v. Holder.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Shelby County v. Holder

Primary Documents

Notifications