Federal oversight of voting laws
Shelby County v. Holder
In brief
The Court struck down Section 4(b)’s formula, so it can no longer be used to require jurisdictions to get federal approval before changing voting rules.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 25, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- Shelby County challenged the Voting Rights Act’s formula for deciding which jurisdictions had to get federal approval before changing voting rules, arguing that Congress lacked authority to keep using it.
- Who it affects
- Jurisdictions covered through Section 4(b) can no longer be required to get federal approval under Section 5 on the basis of that formula.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court struck down Section 4’s formula, so it can no longer be used to require those jurisdictions to get preapproval under Section 5.
Section 5 required jurisdictions selected by the Section 4(b) formula to get federal approval before changing voting rules.
Question presented
Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution?
What the Court decided
Holding
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. 679 F. 3d 848, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said the conditions that originally justified Section 5 no longer described voting in jurisdictions covered by Section 4.
The vote
From the opinions
““[V]oting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.””
What's next
Federal officials can no longer use Section 4(b)’s formula to require advance approval for voting-rule changes.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
Opinion added: Shelby County
More questions
- Did the Court strike down Section 5?
- No. The Court struck down Section 4(b)’s formula; Justice Thomas separately said he would also find Section 5 unconstitutional.
- Why did Justice Ginsburg disagree?
- She said Congress had concluded that Section 5 was still needed to preserve gains and guard against backsliding.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.