Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 60.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

29 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

ment”);  Tennessee  v.  Lane,  541  U. S.  509,  530–534  (2004) 
(Title  II  of  the  ADA  is  constitutional  “as  it  applies  to  the 
class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access
to the courts”); Raines, 362 U. S., at 24–26 (federal statute
proscribing deprivations of the right to vote based on race
was  constitutional  as  applied  to  the  state  officials  before
the  Court,  even  if  it  could  not  constitutionally  be  applied 
to other parties).  A similar approach is warranted here.9 

The  VRA’s  exceptionally  broad  severability  provision 
makes it particularly inappropriate for the Court to allow 
Shelby County to mount a facial challenge to §§4(b) and 5
of the VRA, even though application of those provisions to 
the county falls well within the bounds of Congress’ legis­
lative authority.  The severability provision states: 

“If  any  provision  of  [this  Act]  or  the  application
thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, 
the  remainder  of  [the  Act]  and  the  application  of  the 
provision  to  other  persons  not  similarly  situated  or 
to  other  circumstances  shall  not  be  affected  thereby.”
42 U. S. C. §1973p. 

In other words, even if the VRA could not constitutionally
be applied to certain States—e.g., Arizona and Alaska, see 
ante, at 8—§1973p calls for those unconstitutional applica­
tions  to  be  severed,  leaving  the  Act  in  place  for  juris­
dictions  as  to  which  its  application  does  not  transgress
constitutional limits. 

—————— 

9 The Court does not contest that Alabama’s history of racial discrim­
ination provides a sufficient basis for Congress to require Alabama and
its  political  subdivisions  to  preclear  electoral  changes.    Nevertheless, 
the  Court  asserts  that  Shelby  County  may  prevail  on  its  facial  chal­
lenge to §4’s coverage formula because it is subject to §5’s preclearance 
requirement  by  virtue  of  that  formula.  See  ante,  at  22  (“The  county
was  selected  [for  preclearance]  based  on  th[e]  [coverage]  formula.”).
This  misses  the  reality  that  Congress  decided  to  subject  Alabama  to
preclearance  based  on  evidence  of  continuing  constitutional  violations
in that State.  See supra, at 28, n. 8.