Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder Decision

The Supreme Court strikes down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a 5-4 decision, effectively nullifying Section 5’s preclearance requirement that prevented jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination from changing voting laws without federal approval. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion declares that racial voting discrimination is a relic of the past, rendering the Voting Rights Act’s core protections inoperable and triggering an immediate wave of voter suppression laws across formerly covered states.

The Decision

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, rules that Section 4(b)’s coverage formula—which determined which jurisdictions required federal preclearance for voting changes—is unconstitutional. Roberts argues that the formula is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day” and violates principles of federalism and “equal sovereignty of the states.”

While the majority claims to leave Section 5 (preclearance) itself intact, striking down Section 4(b)’s coverage formula renders Section 5 inoperable—there is no longer a mechanism to determine which jurisdictions require preclearance. The practical effect is the elimination of preclearance, one of the Voting Rights Act’s most powerful enforcement mechanisms.

Roberts declares: “Our country has changed. 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.” The majority opinion suggests that pervasive racial discrimination in voting is largely a thing of the past, making the Voting Rights Act’s extraordinary measures no longer justified.

Justice Ginsburg’s Dissent

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, sharply criticizes the majority’s logic. Ginsburg famously writes: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

The dissent documents extensive evidence of ongoing voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions, noting that between 1982 and 2006, the Department of Justice blocked over 700 proposed voting changes through preclearance. Ginsburg argues that the continued need for preclearance is demonstrated by its continued effectiveness—covered jurisdictions withdrew or altered 800 additional proposed changes after DOJ inquiries, suggesting preclearance deterred far more discrimination than it formally blocked.

Ginsburg emphasizes that Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities (390-33 in the House, 98-0 in the Senate) after extensive hearings documenting continued discrimination. The dissent argues the majority substitutes its own judgment for Congress’s constitutional authority to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Immediate Impact

The effects are immediate and dramatic. Within hours of the decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announces Texas will immediately implement its strict voter ID law, previously blocked under preclearance. North Carolina Republicans signal they will move forward with comprehensive voter suppression legislation. Other formerly covered states rush to implement voting restrictions that would have been blocked under Section 5.

The Brennan Center for Justice documents that within 24 hours of the decision, multiple states move to implement voting restrictions. The decision removes the federal government’s ability to prevent discriminatory voting changes before they take effect, shifting the burden to individual voters and civil rights groups to challenge laws after implementation through lengthy litigation.

Constitutional and Historical Context

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed in response to widespread and systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the South, represented one of the most successful civil rights laws in American history. Section 5’s preclearance requirement—forcing jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting procedures—proved remarkably effective at preventing discriminatory changes.

The majority’s “equal sovereignty of the states” doctrine represents a controversial and selective reading of federalism. Critics note that the Constitution explicitly grants Congress power to enforce voting rights through the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and that the “equal sovereignty” principle had not previously been used to invalidate federal legislation.

Roberts’s assertion that voting discrimination is largely historical contradicts extensive congressional findings. Congress’s 2006 reauthorization included 15,000 pages of testimony and evidence documenting ongoing discrimination, including evidence that jurisdictions continued attempting to implement discriminatory changes that preclearance blocked.

Broader Significance

Shelby County represents a watershed moment in voting rights law, effectively ending the strongest federal protection against racial discrimination in voting. The decision reflects the conservative majority’s skepticism toward race-conscious remedies and deference to state autonomy over congressional civil rights enforcement.

The ruling creates a fundamental shift in voting rights enforcement: from prevention (preclearance stopping discriminatory changes before implementation) to reactive litigation (challenging laws after they take effect and potentially influence elections). This shift imposes enormous burdens on voters and civil rights organizations, requiring expensive litigation to remedy each discriminatory law individually rather than preventing implementation.

The decision’s immediate exploitation by Republican-controlled states demonstrates the continued need for preclearance. The rush to implement previously-blocked voting restrictions suggests that the majority’s premise—that racial discrimination in voting is historical—is fundamentally flawed.

Combined with later decisions like Rucho v. Common Cause (removing federal court oversight of partisan gerrymandering), Shelby County removes key federal safeguards against electoral manipulation. The decision enables a new era of voter suppression, disproportionately affecting Black, Latino, and other minority voters whose access to the ballot the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect.

Long-Term Impact

In the decade following Shelby County, numerous studies document widespread implementation of voting restrictions in formerly covered jurisdictions. Research shows that minority voters face increased barriers to voting, including strict voter ID requirements, polling place closures in minority communities, voter roll purges, and reductions in early voting—precisely the types of discriminatory changes Section 5 previously prevented.

The decision validates conservative legal strategies to limit federal enforcement of civil rights protections under the banner of federalism and “equal sovereignty.” It demonstrates the profound impact of the conservative legal movement’s decades-long project to reshape constitutional law through judicial appointments and strategic litigation, fundamentally altering the federal government’s role in protecting voting rights.