Shelby County v. Holder [2013]

570 U.S. 529 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

Law of Democracylaw-of-democracyvoting-rights-actsection-5section-4federalism

Issue

Whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, used to determine which jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 preclearance, is constitutional in light of the Fifteenth Amendment and the principle of equal state sovereignty.

Held

No. Section 4(b) is unconstitutional. The coverage formula is based on decades-old data and does not reflect current conditions. It imposes a 'disparate and extraordinary' burden on certain states without sufficient justification, violating the constitutional principle of equal state sovereignty and exceeding Congress's enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Exam use

On an exam, if a fact pattern involves a new voter ID law or redistricting plan in a former covered jurisdiction, note that preclearance no longer applies unless the jurisdiction is under a bail-in from a separate lawsuit. The case is essential for federalism questions: does Congress have the power to intrude on state election administration? Compare South Carolina v. Katzenbach (upholding the original VRA) with Shelby County (striking down the formula).

Summary

Shelby County, Alabama, challenged the constitutionality of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which contained the coverage formula used to determine which states and localities must obtain federal preclearance before changing voting laws (Section 5). The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b), effectively invalidating the preclearance regime, holding that the formula based on 1960s and 1970s data violated the principle of equal state sovereignty and exceeded Congress's enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Facts

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General or the D.C. District Court before enacting any change to voting laws. Section 4(b) contained a coverage formula that identified these jurisdictions based on voter registration and turnout data from 1964, 1968, and 1972. Shelby County, a covered jurisdiction in Alabama, sued, arguing that the coverage formula was unconstitutional because it was outdated and not tailored to current conditions. The evidence showed that by 2013, voter registration and turnout among minority voters in covered jurisdictions had substantially narrowed gaps with non-minority voters.

Procedural History

A three-judge district court upheld the Act. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, 5-4.

Issue

Whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, used to determine which jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 preclearance, is constitutional in light of the Fifteenth Amendment and the principle of equal state sovereignty.

Held

No. Section 4(b) is unconstitutional. The coverage formula is based on decades-old data and does not reflect current conditions. It imposes a 'disparate and extraordinary' burden on certain states without sufficient justification, violating the constitutional principle of equal state sovereignty and exceeding Congress's enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

Congress may enforce the Fifteenth Amendment with 'appropriate' legislation, but the enforcement power is not unlimited—there must be a 'congruence and proportionality' between the injury and the remedy. The coverage formula in Section 4(b) used data from the 1960s and 1970s to burden only certain states, but current conditions no longer justify that disparate treatment. The extraordinary federal intrusion on state sovereignty requires stronger justification than an 'inertia' of past discrimination.

Obiter Dicta

Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing that Congress reauthorized the Act in 2006 with extensive evidence of continued discrimination, and that the coverage formula was still relevant because it tracked jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, not current voter registration numbers alone. She emphasized that the 'thicket' of voting discrimination continues.

Reasoning

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, applied the principle of 'equal sovereignty of the states.' While states waived some sovereignty by ratifying the Fifteenth Amendment, the VRA's coverage formula was an extraordinary departure from the basic equal-sovereignty principle. Congress could reauthorize the Act, but the coverage formula must be based on current conditions. The formula's reliance on data from 40 years before the 2006 reauthorization was not 'sufficiently related' to the problem it sought to solve. The Court did not rule on Section 5 itself but left it operational, without a valid coverage formula.

Plain-English Explanation

Think of the Voting Rights Act as having two parts: a formula that decides which states are suspect (Section 4), and a requirement that those states get federal permission before changing voting laws (Section 5). The Supreme Court said the formula was like using a very old snapshot—it captured problems from the 1960s but didn't reflect the progress made since. The Court didn't strike down the permission requirement itself, but without a valid formula, no states are automatically covered. Congress would need to write a new formula based on current data to revive preclearance.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Shelby County v. Holder (570 U.S. 529 (2013)) strengthens a Law of Democracy answer because the case reflects the principle that Congress may enforce the Fifteenth Amendment with 'appropriate' legislation, but the enforcement power is not unlimited—there must be a 'congruence and proportionality' between the injury and the remedy. The coverage formula in Section 4(b) used data from the 1960s and 1970s to burden only certain states, but current conditions no longer justify that disparate treatment. The extraordinary federal intrusion on state sovereignty requires stronger justification than an 'inertia' of past discrimination. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, used to determine which jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 preclearance, is constitutional in light of the Fifteenth Amendment and the principle of equal state sovereignty. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • preclearance
  • coverage formula
  • equal state sovereignty
  • congressional enforcement power
  • fifteenth amendment
  • congruence and proportionality

Precedents Applied

  • South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) — upholding VRA; Boerne v. Flores (1997) — limiting Section 5 enforcement to congruent and proportional remedies

Later Treatment

  • Abbott v. Perez (585 U.S. __, 2018) — applied Section 2 in Texas redistricting; Allen v. Milligan (599 U.S. __, 2023) — upheld Section 2 of the VRA against a constitutional challenge, distinguishing Shelby County

Key Passages

  • Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.

Significance

Shelby County effectively gutted the preclearance requirement, the most powerful tool of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has not updated the formula since 2013. As a result, jurisdictions that were once required to preclear voting changes no longer have to do so, unless they are covered by a separate court finding under Section 3(c) (a 'bail-in'). This case reshaped the law of democracy by shifting the burden of litigation from jurisdictions to private plaintiffs. It is a staple of exam questions on the VRA, federalism, and congressional enforcement power. Students should know the difference between Section 4(b) and Section 5, and that Section 2 remains a standalone, nationwide remedy for vote dilution and denial.

Related Cases

Exam Tips

On an exam, if a fact pattern involves a new voter ID law or redistricting plan in a former covered jurisdiction, note that preclearance no longer applies unless the jurisdiction is under a bail-in from a separate lawsuit. The case is essential for federalism questions: does Congress have the power to intrude on state election administration? Compare South Carolina v. Katzenbach (upholding the original VRA) with Shelby County (striking down the formula).

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

When a problem question involves a state that was once covered (like Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas) and enacts a new voting restriction, do not assume preclearance applies. Instead, analyze whether the law violates Section 2 of the VRA, which remains fully effective and can be enforced by private plaintiffs.

Common Pitfalls

  • Thinking Section 5 was struck down entirely (it was not; only the coverage formula was)
  • Assuming Congress can easily reimpose a new formula (political reality is different; this is a good point for a 'policy' answer)
  • Confusing the coverage formula with the preclearance requirement itself.

Sources