Civil and Human Rights

Briefs supporting Section 5 point to substantial evidence on which Congress relied

By Marcia Coyle

 

…More than two dozen amicus briefs have been filed on the side of the United States and the defendant intervenors in an organized and thorough effort to refute the main arguments against the constitutionality of Section 5 by Shelby County and its supporters.

 

Reflecting the high stakes in the case, they were filed on behalf of such civil rights legends as U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), leaders of the House and Senate, political scientists, jurisdictions that have successfully “bailed out” of Section 5 coverage, some of the states that are still covered by Section 5, constitutional law scholars, bar associations, historians, social scientists, and Latino, Asian American, Native American and Alaskan Native organizations.

 

There is even an unusual brief submitted by former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former career Justice Department officials specifically attacking two amicus briefs on the Shelby County side, one from former Republican officials who served in the civil rights division of the Justice Department…

 

…The Constitutional Accountability Center and constitutional law scholars argue the plain language and original meaning of the enforcement clauses of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments give Congress broad powers to prevent racial discrimination in voting….

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2025

CAC Release: Purporting to Effectuate “Pure Textualism,” Supreme Court Guts ADA’s Protections for Retirees, Neglecting Critical Statutory Context and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Stanley v. City of...
Civil and Human Rights
June 18, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Allows Tennessee to Flout Constitution’s Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti,...
Civil and Human Rights
June 21, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.