Shelby County v. Holder: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=570 U.S. 529 (2013) |date=June 25, 2013 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit | |appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit | ||
|cited=McCulloch v. Maryland | |cited=McCulloch v. Maryland | ||
|facts=The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 5 required certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices. Section 4(b) contained the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting. | |facts=The '''Voting Rights Act of 1965''', Section 5 required certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices. Section 4(b) contained the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to <span style="background:yellow">preclearance regime</span> based on their histories of discrimination in voting. | ||
|procedural_history=Shelby County, Alabama sued U.S. Attorney General [[Eric H. Holder, Jr.]] in the U.S. District Court for D.C., which found the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional. Shelby County appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's decision. | |procedural_history=Shelby County, Alabama sued U.S. Attorney General [[Eric H. Holder, Jr.]] in the U.S. District Court for D.C., which found the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional based on the Enforcement Clause of the [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#15th_Amendment_.28Men.27s_vote.29|15th Amendment]]. | ||
Shelby County appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's decision. | |||
|issues=Is Section 4(b) unconstitutional? | |issues=Is Section 4(b) unconstitutional? | ||
|arguments=The coverage formula of Section 4(b) is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. | |arguments=The coverage formula of Section 4(b) is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. | ||
|holding=Yes, Section 4(b) is unconstitutional. | |holding=Yes, Section 4(b) is unconstitutional. | ||
|judgment=Reversed. | |judgment=Reversed. | ||
|comments='''RBG dissent''': "the Voting Rights Act fully satisfies the standard stated in [[McCulloch v. Maryland|McCulloch]], 4 Wheat., at 421: Congress may choose any means 'appropriate' and 'plainly adapted to' a legitimate constitutional end." | |comments='''RBG dissent''': "the Voting Rights Act fully satisfies the standard stated in [[McCulloch v. Maryland|McCulloch]], 4 Wheat., at 421: Congress may choose any means 'appropriate' and 'plainly adapted to' a legitimate constitutional end." | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
| Line 30: | Line 29: | ||
|opinion_type=concurrence | |opinion_type=concurrence | ||
|written_by=Clarence Thomas | |written_by=Clarence Thomas | ||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=dissent | |opinion_type=dissent | ||
Latest revision as of 03:36, July 14, 2023
| Shelby County v. Holder | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 570 U.S. 529 (2013) |
| Date decided | June 25, 2013 |
| Appealed from | U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit |
| Cited | McCulloch v. Maryland |
| Case Opinions | |
| majority | written by John Roberts joined by Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito |
| concurrence | written by Clarence Thomas |
| dissent | written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined by Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan |
Facts
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 5 required certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices. Section 4(b) contained the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance regime based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
Procedural History
Shelby County, Alabama sued U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for D.C., which found the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional based on the Enforcement Clause of the 15th Amendment.
Shelby County appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's decision.Issues
Is Section 4(b) unconstitutional?
Arguments
The coverage formula of Section 4(b) is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.
Holding
Yes, Section 4(b) is unconstitutional.
Judgment
Reversed.
Comments
RBG dissent: "the Voting Rights Act fully satisfies the standard stated in McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 421: Congress may choose any means 'appropriate' and 'plainly adapted to' a legitimate constitutional end."
