Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 32

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

1 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–96 
_________________ 

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, PETITIONER v. ERIC 
H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
 

[June 25, 2013] 

JUSTICE  GINSBURG,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting 
Rights  Act  demands  its  dormancy.    Congress  was  of
another  mind.  Recognizing  that  large  progress  has  been
made,  Congress  determined,  based  on  a  voluminous  rec­
ord,  that  the  scourge  of  discrimination  was  not  yet  extir­
pated.  The  question  this  case  presents  is  who  decides
whether,  as  currently  operative,  §5  remains  justifiable,1 
this  Court,  or  a  Congress  charged  with  the  obligation  to 
enforce  the  post-Civil  War  Amendments  “by  appropriate 
legislation.”    With  overwhelming  support  in  both  Houses, 
Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 should 
continue  in  force,  unabated.    First,  continuance  would 
facilitate  completion  of  the  impressive  gains  thus  far 
made; and second, continuance would guard against back­
sliding.  Those  assessments  were  well  within  Congress’ 
province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting 
approbation. 

I 

“[V]oting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.” 

—————— 

1 The  Court  purports  to  declare  unconstitutional  only  the  coverage
formula set out in §4(b).  See ante, at 24.  But without that formula, §5 
is immobilized.