Case Summary
**Case Summary: Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric Holder, Jr.**
**Docket Number:** 12-96 (previously referenced as 2648645)
**Court:** United States Supreme Court
**Date Decided:** June 25, 2013
**Background:**
Shelby County, Alabama, challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required jurisdictions with significant racial discrimination histories to obtain federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws or practices. The County argued that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to this preclearance requirement was outdated and unconstitutional, claiming it violated the principles of equal sovereignty among the states.
**Key Issues:**
1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires preclearance for certain jurisdictions, is unconstitutional.
2. Whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) is constitutional and valid under the Constitution.
**Arguments:**
- **Petitioners (Shelby County):** Claimed that the provisions of the Voting Rights Act were no longer necessary due to changes in the political landscape since the Act's inception. They argued that the federal government was overreaching by imposing restrictions on jurisdictions that had made significant progress in terms of voting rights.
- **Respondents (Eric Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General):** Argued that the provisions were still necessary to protect against racial discrimination in voting and that Congress had the authority to enact such measures under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
**Supreme Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Shelby County, striking down the coverage formula in Section 4(b) as unconstitutional. The Court held that the formula was based on outdated data and thus failed to reflect the current conditions regarding racial discrimination in voting. This effectively nullified the preclearance requirement imposed by Section 5 for jurisdictions covered by the formula, ruling that it violated the principle of equal sovereignty among the states.
**Impact:**
The ruling had significant implications for voting rights in the United States, as it invalidated the federal government's ability to monitor voting changes in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination. This decision raised concerns among civil rights advocates about the potential for voter suppression and discrimination in states previously subject to federal oversight.
**Conclusion:**
Shelby County v. Holder marked a pivotal moment in voting rights law, signaling a shift away from federal oversight established by the Voting Rights Act and impacting future legislative efforts to address racial discrimination in voting.