South Carolina v. Katzenbach
383 U.S. 301 (1966)
Constitutional Topic Areas:
Original Jurisdiction, 15th Amendment Enforcement Clause, Federalism
Case Facts:
In 1966, South Carolina sued then US Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach over the pre-clearance provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed under the 15th Amendment’s Enforcement Clause and mandated some states must change their election rules, requiring any “test or device” aimed at denying citizens from voting, e.g., literacy tests, must be removed. States would also be required to submit changes to their election laws to the US Attorney General to verify the legality of the new law. South Carolina argued the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutionally requiring states to change their election laws and procedures. In a rare exercise of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, the court heard the case immediately, rather than the case being appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Questions:
1. Does the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violate state’s rights on election proceedings and laws?
Holding:
1. No
Legal Reasoning: Chief Justice E. Warren (8-1)
1. 15th Amendment enforcement clause must be interpreted with historical experience
2. The 15th Amendment’s Enforcement Clause grants Congress full remedial powers to protect citizens from racial discrimination, especially in the context of voting
Concurrence/Dissent: Justice H.L. Black
1. While most of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains constitutional, section five of the pre-clearance provision should be struck down because it oversteps Congress’ authority and exceeded the textual reach of the Constitution, effectively giving Congress too much power to override state’s laws
Significance:
As the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was left standing after the Court’s ruling, the VRA allowed around 800,000 African-Americans to register to vote from 1964-1967. This case set the precedent that Congress possesses “full remedial powers” to prevent racial discrimination under the 15th amendment. In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the VRA had provisions stuck down in a case of living constitutionalism, with the court arguing the decades old provisions became irrelevant to current laws and regulations
Reflection:
Many objectors to the court’s ruling on this case argue this case represents an extreme example of judicial activism, as alleging justices were motivated by their own personal beliefs to set political precedent, rather than explicitly rely on the law itself. This case furthered the advancement of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, followed by President Johnson to create a number of civil rights aimed actions, such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Overall, Carolina strengthened the power of the federal government
Supreme Court Case Briefs 