Constitutional Accountability Center Constitutional Accountability Center
Access to Justice

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder

At issue in NAMUDNO v. Holder was whether the appellant is eligible to bail out from the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and whether Congress provided sufficient justification of current voting discrimination when extended the requirement in 2006 for another twenty-five years.

Case Summary

Faced with the prospect of invalidating one of our nation’s most important and iconic civil rights laws – renewed in 2006 with overwhelming support across the political spectrum – the Supreme Court on June 22, 2009, backed one step away from a very steep cliff. You can read our analysis of the Supreme Court’s opinion on Text & History.

The Supreme Court heard arguments for NAMUDNO v. Holder on April 29, 2009. Read our news release and post-argument analysis from Text & History.

Background: On March 25, 2009, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting the United States and a coalition of civil rights organizations in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (NAMUDNO), a case in which a utility district in Texas has challenged Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of our country’s most important civil rights laws. CAC’s brief argues that the text and history of the Reconstruction Amendments show that these Amendments were intended to provide Congress with the tools to effectively protect fundamental rights, including the right to vote secured by Congress’ extension of the Voting Rights Act. As CAC’s brief demonstrates, our Reconstruction Framers made their intent to vest Congress with broad power to enact “appropriate legislation” abundantly clear in the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, which was written to provide Americans with a “shield of national protection.”

CAC’s co-counsel on the NAMUDNO brief is Cliff Sloan, a partner at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and prominent author.

Case Timeline

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas

In United States ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Flowers Foods v. Brock

In Flowers Foods v. Brock, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System

In T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires dismissal of a request for relief from a state-court decision that did not reach the state’s highest...
Access to Justice
January 14, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Justices Pose Difficult Questions to State-Affiliated Corporation that Claims Immunity from Suit

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Galette v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Colt

In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation and New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt, the Supreme Court is considering whether state-affiliated corporations have sovereign immunity.
Access to Justice
October 6, 2025

RELEASE: Supreme Court Considers the Scope of a Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Villarreal v....