Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

41 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

be  considering  any  old  piece  of  legislation—say,  the  Lan-
ham Act or ERISA. 
  But then, at least, the majority should treat the Voting 
Rights Act as if it were ordinary legislation.  The Court al-
ways says that it must interpret a statute according to its 
text—that  it  has  no  warrant  to  override  congressional 
choices.    But  the  majority  today  flouts  those  choices  with 
abandon.    The  language  of  Section  2 is  as  broad  as  broad 
can be.  It applies to any policy that “results in” disparate 
voting  opportunities  for  minority  citizens.    It  prohibits, 
without any need to show bad motive, even facially neutral 
laws that make voting harder for members of one race than 
of another, given their differing life circumstances.  That is 
the  expansive  statute  Congress  wrote,  and  that  our  prior 
decisions have recognized.  But the majority today lessens 
the law—cuts Section 2 down to its own preferred size.  The 
majority creates a set of extra-textual exceptions and con-
siderations to sap the Act’s strength, and to save laws like 
Arizona’s.  No matter what Congress wanted, the majority 
has other ideas. 
  This Court has no right to remake Section 2.  Maybe some 
think that vote suppression is a relic of history—and so the 
need for a potent Section 2 has come and gone.  Cf. Shelby 
County, 570 U. S., at 547 (“[T]hings have changed dramati-
cally”).  But Congress gets to make that call.  Because it has 
not  done  so,  this  Court’s  duty  is  to  apply  the  law  as  it  is 
written.  The law that confronted one of this country’s most 
enduring wrongs; pledged to give every American, of every 
race, an equal chance to participate in our democracy; and 
now  stands  as  the  crucial  tool  to  achieve  that  goal.    That 
law,  of  all  laws,  deserves  the  sweep  and  power  Congress 
gave it.  That law, of all laws, should not be diminished by 
this Court.