Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Section 5 is, thus, unconstitutional. 

While the Court claims to “issue no holding on §5 itself,” 
ante,  at  24,  its  own  opinion  compellingly  demonstrates 
that Congress has failed to justify “ ‘current burdens’ ” with 
a  record  demonstrating  “ ‘current  needs.’ ”    See  ante,  at  9 
(quoting Northwest Austin, supra, at 203).  By leaving the
inevitable  conclusion  unstated,  the  Court  needlessly  pro-
longs the demise of that provision.  For the reasons stated 
in the Court’s opinion, I would find §5 unconstitutional.