Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required certain states and localities with histories of racial discrimination to get federal preclearance before changing voting laws. Shelby County, Alabama, challenged the coverage formula in Section 4(b). The Supreme Court struck down the formula as outdated, effectively nullifying preclearance.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision gutted one of the most powerful tools for preventing racial discrimination in voting. States previously covered by preclearance quickly passed restrictive voting laws.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Took Away: Federal oversight of changes to voting laws in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.
• Provided: Greater autonomy for states to run elections without federal approval.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Critics argue the Court ignored ongoing racial disparities in voting and overstepped by dismantling a law repeatedly reauthorized by Congress. Supporters say it restored state sovereignty where the formula was outdated.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
After Shelby, states gained more freedom to change voting rules, leading to new voter ID laws, polling place closures, and redistricting battles. It remains one of the most consequential rulings for modern elections.

• Voting Rights
• 15th Amendment
• Federalism
• Elections