Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 61

30 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

Nevertheless,  the  Court  suggests  that  limiting  the
jurisdictional  scope  of  the  VRA  in  an  appropriate  case 
would be “to try our hand at updating the statute.”  Ante, 
at  22.  Just  last  Term,  however,  the  Court  rejected  this
very  argument  when  addressing  a  materially  identical
severability  provision,  explaining  that  such  a  provision  is
“Congress’  explicit  textual  instruction  to  leave  unaffected
the remainder of [the Act]” if any particular “application is 
unconstitutional.”  National  Federation  of  Independent 
Business  v.  Sebelius,  567  U. S.  __,  __  (2012)  (plurality 
opinion)  (slip  op.,  at  56)  (internal  quotation  marks  omit­
ted);  id.,  at  __  (GINSBURG,  J.,  concurring  in  part,  concur­
ring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part) (slip op.,
at 60) (agreeing with the plurality’s severability analysis). 
See also Raines, 362 U. S., at 23 (a statute capable of some
constitutional applications may nonetheless be susceptible 
to  a  facial  challenge  only  in  “that  rarest  of  cases  where 
this  Court  can  justifiably  think  itself  able  confidently  to 
discern  that  Congress  would  not  have  desired  its  legisla­
tion to stand at all unless it could validly stand in its every 
application”).  Leaping  to  resolve  Shelby  County’s  facial
challenge  without  considering  whether  application  of  the 
VRA  to  Shelby  County  is  constitutional,  or  even  address­
ing  the  VRA’s  severability  provision,  the  Court’s  opinion 
can hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and 
moderate decisionmaking.  Quite the opposite.  Hubris is a 
fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA. 

B 
The  Court  stops  any  application  of  §5  by  holding  that
§4(b)’s  coverage  formula  is  unconstitutional.    It  pins  this
result,  in  large  measure,  to  “the  fundamental  principle  of
equal  sovereignty.”  Ante,  at  10–11,  23.    In  Katzenbach, 
however,  the  Court  held,  in  no  uncertain  terms,  that  the 
principle “applies only to the terms upon which States are 
admitted  to  the  Union,  and  not  to  the  remedies  for  local