Previous 27 / 68 Next

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 23 Opinion of the Court that the Act was “uncommon” and “not otherwise appropriate,” but was justified by “exceptional” and “unique” conditions. 383 U. S., at 334, 335. Multiple decisions since have reaffirmed the Act’s “extraordinary” nature. See, e.g., Northwest Austin, supra, at 211. Yet the dissent goes so far as to suggest instead that the preclearance requirement and disparate treatment of the States should be upheld into the future “unless there [is] no or almost no evidence of unconstitutional action by States.” Post, at 33. In other ways as well, the dissent analyzes the question presented as if our decision in Northwest Austin never happened. For example, the dissent refuses to consider the principle of equal sovereignty, despite Northwest Austin’s emphasis on its significance. Northwest Austin also emphasized the “dramatic” progress since 1965, 557 U. S., at 201, but the dissent describes current levels of discrimination as “flagrant,” “widespread,” and “pervasive,” post, at 7, 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite the fact that Northwest Austin requires an Act’s “disparate geographic coverage” to be “sufficiently related” to its targeted problems, 557 U. S., at 203, the dissent maintains that an Act’s limited coverage actually eases Congress’s burdens, and suggests that a fortuitous relationship should suffice. Although Northwest Austin stated definitively that “current burdens” must be justified by “current needs,” ibid., the dissent argues that the coverage formula can be justified by history, and that the required showing can be weaker on reenactment than when the law was first passed. There is no valid reason to insulate the coverage formula from review merely because it was previously enacted 40 years ago. If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula. It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between States in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an

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