Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

Syllabus 

tinued constitutionality.  See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. 
No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193. 

Petitioner  Shelby  County,  in  the  covered  jurisdiction  of  Alabama,
sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court in Washington, 
D. C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are fa-
cially  unconstitutional,  as  well  as  a  permanent  injunction  against
their  enforcement.    The  District  Court  upheld  the  Act,  finding  that
the  evidence  before  Congress  in  2006  was  sufficient  to  justify  reau-
thorizing §5 and continuing §4(b)’s coverage formula.  The D. C. Cir-
cuit affirmed.  After surveying the evidence in the record, that court
accepted  Congress’s  conclusion  that  §2  litigation  remained  inade-
quate  in  the  covered  jurisdictions  to  protect  the  rights  of  minority
voters,  that  §5  was  therefore  still  necessary,  and  that  the  coverage
formula continued to pass constitutional muster. 

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula
can  no  longer  be  used  as  a  basis  for  subjecting  jurisdictions  to  pre-
clearance.  Pp. 9–25.

(a) In  Northwest  Austin,  this  Court  noted  that  the  Voting  Rights
Act “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs”
and  concluded  that  “a  departure  from  the  fundamental  principle  of 
equal  sovereignty  requires  a  showing  that  a  statute’s  disparate  geo-
graphic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets.”
557 U. S., at 203.  These basic principles guide review of the question 
presented here.  Pp. 9–17.

(1) State  legislation  may  not  contravene  federal  law.    States  re-
tain broad autonomy, however, in structuring their governments and
pursuing  legislative  objectives.  Indeed,  the  Tenth  Amendment  re-
serves to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal
Government, including “the power to regulate elections.”  Gregory v. 
Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 461–462.  There is also a “fundamental prin-
ciple  of  equal  sovereignty”  among  the  States,  which  is  highly  perti-
nent  in  assessing  disparate  treatment  of  States.  Northwest  Austin, 
supra, at 203. 

The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. 
It requires States to beseech the Federal Government for permission
to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact 
and  execute  on  their  own.   And  despite  the  tradition  of  equal  sover-
eignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and additional counties).
That is why, in 1966, this Court described the Act as “stringent” and 
“potent,” Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337.  The Court nonethe-
less  upheld  the  Act,  concluding  that  such an  “uncommon  exercise  of
congressional  power”  could  be  justified  by  “exceptional  conditions.” 
Id., at 334.  Pp. 9–12.

(2) In  1966,  these  departures  were  justified  by  the  “blight  of  ra-