Document: 432 U.S. 404 97 S.Ct. 2428 53 L.Ed.2d 439 Dolph BRISCOE, Governor of Texas, et al., Petitioners,v.Griffin B. BELL, Attorney General the United States, al. No. 76-60. Argued April 20, 1977. Decided June Syllabus The provision § 4(b) Voting Rights Act 1965 that a determination or Director Census State is covered by "shall not be reviewable in any court" held absolutely to preclude judicial review such determination. Hence District Court and Appeals erred holding they had jurisdiction petitioners' claims (respondents) erroneously applied determining Texas 1975 amendments extending its protections language minorities, as Mexican-Americans. A "bailout" suit under 4(a) terminate coverage Texas' sole remedy. Pp. 409-415. (a) Such construction supported legislative history Act's structure purpose eradicate voting discrimination with all possible speed, well this Court's interpretations Act. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 301, 86 803, 15 769; Gaston County 395 285, 89 1720, 23 309; Morris Gressette, 491, 2411, 506. 410-414. (b) While finality determinations may "an uncommon exercise congressional power," supra, U.S., at 335, S.Ct., 822, nevertheless attacking pervasive evils tenacious defenders discrimination, Congress acted within "power enforce" Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendments "by appropriate legislation." 414-415. 175 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 535 F.2d 1259, vacated remanded. David M. Kendall, Jr., Austin, Tex., for petitioners. Howard E. Shapiro, Washington, D. C., respondents. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 At issue case 4 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973b (1970 ed. Supp. V). "The was designed banish blight racial voting." 308, 808, 769 (1966). has dramatic effect increasing participation black citizens electoral process, both voters elected officials, viewed it an unqualified success.1 Most recently, part Act, Stat. 400, extended strong cover minorities is, living environments where dominant English. concluded after extensive hearings there "overwhelming evidence" showing "the ingenuity prevalence discriminatory practices have been used dilute strength otherwise affect rights minorities."2 Concern particularly expressed over plight Mexican-American Act.3 This arises out efforts prevent application it. 2 * Petitioners, Secretary filed Columbia against States Census.4 These officials are responsible whether preconditions particular jurisdictions met. 1973b(b) ed., V).5 Petitioners sought interlocutory injunctive relief restrain official publication respondents' amendments, "declaratory judgment" "how what circumstances . should made."6 Pet. Cert. 6. 3 Respondents opposed motion preliminary injunction, moved dismiss failure state claim upon which could granted lack made 4(b). jurisdictional argument based on final paragraph 4(b), provides pertinent part: "A certification section shall court ." ruled, however, apparent preclusion absolute. It found consider "pure legal question" Executive correctly interpreted Congress. Reaching merits claims, rejected them summary judgment respondents.7 On appeal Circuit, respondents discussed but did "take with" ruling considered carefully, concluding: 5 "It even intent review, limited exists actions their face plainly excess statutory authority. district instant careful note actual computations were scope 'consistent meaning statute.' Narrowly defined manner, trial Director's precedent Briscoe Levi, 303, 1265 (1976). 6 Turning procedural arguments, thoroughly analyzed statute history. affirmed Court.8 7 We certiorari sub nom. 429 997, 522, 50 607 Although do assert before us objection raised Court, we find courts below incorrectly power Philbrook Glodgett, 421 707, 721, 95 1893, 1902, 44 525 (1975), cases cited. therefore order dismissal complaint without reaching claims. II 8 (1) Section hardly prohibit more explicit terms. states "determination effective Federal Register." absolute would appear admit no exceptions. purposes strongly support straightforward interpretation. 9 conceived stern powerful remedy combat insidious evil perpetuated certain parts our country through unremitting ingenious defiance Constitution." 309, 808. stringent remedial provisions Act9 Congress' finding "case-by-case litigation inadequate widespread persistent voting, because inordinate amount time energy required overcome obstructionist tactics invariably encountered Id., 328, 818. intention drafters "to shift advantage inertia from perpetrators victims." Ibid. Reading completely precluding thus implements speed. 10 drafters' specific comments further view. House Report stated formula "requires factual when court." H.R.Rep. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 25 (1965); U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 2437, 2456. minority report criticized precisely went into "without evidence, proceeding hearing kind." 45; p. 2473; see also id., 43. Senate Judiciary Committee sponsors described requiring "factual S.Rep. 162, pt. 3, 22 (1965). 11 aware, simple might bring sweep governmental units guilty unlawful practices. afforded immediately available protection form action so-called subject narrow substantive limitations,10 does instruct if he "determines reason believe test device" prohibited during relevant period, "he consent entry exempting jurisdiction. 14-15, 19.11 12 never length clause, indicated words mean say. In upheld constitutionality "bar(red) direct findings trigger formula." 332, 821. recognized "improperly applied," bailout only 333, noted "(t)his procedure serves partial substitute review." 13 Similarly, 309 (1969), "(t)he chosen speedy, objective, incontrovertible." 291-292, 1723. footnote added: "Section makes unreviewable 292 n. 6, 287, 1721. significant played discretionary authority administering underlined There finds General's object, change laws contains express concludes intended prolonged suspension operation validly enacted allow review. Since expressly administrative court," conclusions similar those drawn structure, anything, stronger here than Morris. 14 conclude then, plain interpretation it, indicate barred. " 'persuasive Congress.' Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140, 87 1507, 18 681 (1967)." Dunlop Bachowski, 560, 567, 1851, 1857, 377 (1975). "(T)he heavy burden overcoming presumption review" decision met requisite 'clear convincing evidence.' Ibid.12 Under these circumstances, relying inferred clear preclusion.13 different enactments distinct use diverse means achieve them, each raising reviewability question must basis involved. If unmistakable doubt remaining prohibiting constitutionally permissible. 16 (2) score, like preclearance requirement 5, 334, 822; 501, 2419. But can discrimination. supra. 17 For foregoing reasons, hold erroneous seek termination strict limitations 4(a). Accordingly, vacated, remanded instructions complaint. so ordered. 19 POWELL concurs See, e. g., 94-295, 13-15 (1975) (hereafter Report); 94-196, 6-8 1975, 774. 30, 35; 22, 26-27; 801. 4(f)(1) 1973b(f)(1) V): national scope. other addition denied equal educational opportunities local governments, resulting severe disabilities continuing illiteracy English language. that, conduct elections English, excluded participating process. many areas country, exclusion aggravated acts physical, economic, political intimidation. declares enforce guarantees fourteenth fifteenth Constitution, necessary eliminate English-only elections, prescribing devices." term 'language minorities' group' persons who American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives Spanish heritage." 14(c)(3) 1973l (c)(3) 24; 16. apply determines five per centum age members single minority." 4(f)(3) 1973b(f)(3) 25-28; 17-20. Also named defendants Assistant General, Civil Division, Commerce, Public Printer States. As case, substantively provides: subsection subdivision (i) maintained November 1, 1972, device, respect (ii) less registered voted Presidential election 1972." argued "test 4(f)(3), V) obliged done "for denying abridging right vote" 4(d). They "such persons," last clause quoted refer vote rather citizens. rejected, violated duties failing afford making calculating number heritage Texas. disclaimed constitutional challenge After relief, officially published. 40 Fed.Reg. 43746 elections. calculated agency's statistics 5% heritage, 46.2% cast ballots 1972 election: Estimated population 1,1972......................... 7,655,000 Less aliens age..................... 140,657 Citizens age...................... 7,514,343 Votes cast.................................. 3,472,714 ruled definitions 4(d) suits brought 4(a), while unclear, clearly persons" referred "citizens age." properly relied census figures age, rejecting "amalgams estimates hypotheses," U.S.App.D.C., 307, F.2d, 1269, allegedly large numbers illegal entitled pre-determination coverage, ample opportunity present information made. suspends "tests devices," including jurisdictions. 4. Before implement procedures, secure approval three-judge will violate 5. addition, federal registrars observers appointed effectuate compliance §§ 6-9. Columbia, show "that device ten years preceding filing account race color, contravention (language minority) Another proviso define applicable standards. notable successfully exempted themselves suits. Report, 4, 5; proving nondiscrimination impossible one means, ameliorative route times. statement Register," foreclosed publication, before. commenced prior Petitioners' tortures paragraph, up two independent clauses. first precludes limitation time; second establishes precise date becomes effective, thereby requiring, example, affecting date. primarily reasoned analogy Leedom Kyne, 358 184, 79 180, 210 (1958). National Labor Relations Board "in delegated powers contrary (statutory) prohibition," 188, certifying collective-bargaining unit. 9(d) 29 159(d), arguably divested jurisdiction, contained effect. merely specified manner record transmitted appeals ultimate event unfair labor practice followed employer's refusal bargain certified union. group employees affected NLRB's admitted violation bargaining unless Board's error. Absent preclusion, unwilling 'obliteration given (the employees), control protect right." 190, 185. By contrast forecloses No inference nor history, cf. 191-201, 185, 190. (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), make plain. And noted, wholly pretermit coverage. Thermtron Products, Inc. Hermansdorfer, 423 336, 96 584, 46 542 grant mandamus improper remand previously removed court. generally "not otherwise." 28 1447(d). held, precluded 'on grounds authorizing remand, U.S.C.) 1447(c) permits.' Gravitt Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 430 723, 724, 1439, 1440, 52 (1977). Where enumerated grounds, unavailable matter how error ordering remand. 1440. criteria statute, solely

Category: 1