Shelby County v. Holder

Shelby County v. Holder
Name	Shelby County v. Holder
Court	Supreme Court of the United States
Date	June 25, 2013
Citation	570 U.S. 529
Prior	On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Holding	Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional
Opinion	Chief Justice John Roberts

Contents

Shelby County v. Holder is a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case that challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal law enacted to prevent racial discrimination in voting, as enforced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. The case was brought by Shelby County, Alabama, a county in the Southern United States, against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States at the time, who was supported by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2013, with Bert Rein representing Shelby County, Alabama, and Donald Verrilli Jr. representing the United States Department of Justice, which included the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Civil Rights Division.

Background and legal context

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the Southern United States, particularly in states such as Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, where Jim Crow laws were prevalent, and organizations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were actively working to register African American voters. The law required certain states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting to preclear any changes to their voting laws or procedures with the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which included the Civil Rights Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This preclearance requirement was based on a coverage formula established in Section 4(b) of the law, which considered factors such as the use of literacy tests and the percentage of African Americans registered to vote in the 1964 presidential election, as reported by the United States Census Bureau. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was amended in 1970, 1975, and 1982, with the support of Congressional Black Caucus members like John Conyers and Bobby Rush, and was reauthorized in 2006 by President George W. Bush with the support of Republican senators like Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch, as well as Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama.

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in the case, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The majority held that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional because it relied on outdated data and did not account for changes in voting practices since the law was enacted, as noted by Attorney General Eric Holder and the United States Department of Justice, which included the Civil Rights Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The majority also noted that the preclearance requirement had been successful in addressing racial discrimination in voting, but that it was no longer necessary, as stated by Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain, and that the Congress had the authority to enact new legislation to address ongoing voting rights issues, with the support of organizations like the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The dissent argued that the majority's decision was premature and that the preclearance requirement was still necessary to prevent racial discrimination in voting, as noted by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union. The dissent also noted that the Congress had reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support, including from Republican senators like Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch, as well as Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama, and that the majority's decision undermined the law's effectiveness, as stated by Attorney General Eric Holder and the United States Department of Justice, which included the Civil Rights Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The decision in the case was met with widespread criticism from civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the decision would lead to a resurgence of racial discrimination in voting, as noted by Senator Cory Booker and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The decision was also criticized by Democratic lawmakers, including President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who argued that the decision undermined the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and would make it more difficult for African Americans to exercise their right to vote, as reported by the New York Times and the Washington Post. In contrast, some Republican lawmakers, including Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator John Cornyn, praised the decision as a victory for states' rights and an acknowledgment that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had achieved its goals, as stated by the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

In the aftermath of the decision, there were several attempts to enact new legislation to address voting rights issues, including the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014, which was introduced by Representative John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy, with the support of organizations like the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Conference of State Legislatures. However, these efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, and the decision in the case has had a lasting impact on voting rights in the United States, as noted by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Pew Research Center. The decision has also been cited as a factor in the passage of voter identification laws and other voting restrictions in several states, including Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, which have been challenged in court by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, with the support of Democratic lawmakers like Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Bernie Sanders. The legacy of the case continues to be felt, with ongoing debates about voting rights and the role of the federal government in protecting the right to vote, as reported by the New York Times and the Washington Post, and as discussed by scholars at institutions like Harvard University and Stanford University.