United States Supreme Court
133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013)
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. Prior to the enactment of this statute, several states maintained test or devices, such as literacy and knowledge tests, good moral-character requirements, and vouchers requirements for registered voters. In several states, white citizens were registered to vote at a rate approximately 50 percent higher than African American citizens, as a percentage of total eligible voters in each classification. Because of these conditions, Congress determined that racial discrimination in voting restrictions was entrenched and pervasive. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibited any standard, practice, or procedure imposed or applied to deny or limit the right to vote on account of race or color. In the states with the most severe restrictions, Congress required any changes in voting procedures be preapproved by either the Attorney General or a court of three judges in Washington, D.C., under § 5 of the act. These states were determined through a formula set forth in § 4(b). Both § 4(b) and § 5 were temporary and were set to expire after five years. Congress reauthorized these two sections in 1970 and updated the coverage formula in § 4. This happened again in 1975 and 1982. The 1982 reauthorization was effective for 25 years and did not change § 4(b)’s coverage formula. In 2006, Congress again reauthorized § 5’s restrictions for another 25 years and did not change § 4(b)’s coverage formula. However, by 2004, the voter-registration figures were nearly equal between white citizens and African American citizens. Shelby County, Alabama (plaintiff) sued the federal government (defendant), seeking a declaratory judgment that § 4(b) and § 5 were unconstitutional. The district court found that the provisions were constitutional. Shelby County appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which affirmed. Shelby County then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.