Civil and Human Rights

The Roberts Court v. the Constitution: Column

The Supreme Court’s decision in “Shelby County v. Holder” abandons constitutional protection of the right to vote.

 

The most basic requirement of any Supreme Court decision involving the application of the Constitution is to explain how the Constitution’s text and meaning command the result the Court reaches. By that standard, today’s 5-4 opinion in Shelby County v. Holder is a colossal failure. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court struck down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act – a statute that has ensured protection of the right to vote for millions of Americans – without ever explaining what provision of the Constitution rendered this iconic, landmark statute unconstitutional.

 

Not only that, but Chief Justice Roberts also studiously avoided the part of the Constitution most directly applicable. The Roberts opinion flouted the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment, which expressly give to Congress broad powers to prevent and deter all forms of racial discrimination in voting.

 

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demonstrated in a brilliant dissent, the Fifteenth Amendment had a “transformative effect,” giving to Congress sweeping new powers to “shield the right to vote from racial discrimination.” The Fifteenth Amendment, she explained, was one of three Civil War Amendments that “arm Congress with the power and authority to protect all persons within the Nation from violations of their rights by the States.” Under the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to enact prophylactic laws, such as the Voting Rights Act, to protect the right to vote against state-sponsored racial discrimination. Justice Ginsburg gave a command performance, showing how the majority’s reasoning cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text, history, and meaning. Chief Justice Roberts had no real answer.

 

Conservatives like to make fun of decisions that abandon the Constitution in favor of penumbras and emanations, but that is all Chief Justice Roberts offered in today’s ruling. He argued that the Voting Rights Act is inconsistent with the “letter and spirit of the Constitution,” but his opinion is all spirit.

 

He placed heavy reliance on principles of state sovereignty, forgetting that the American people added the Fifteenth Amendment to make sure that Congress could act to prevent racial discrimination in voting by the states and ensure that the right to vote was a reality for all Americans regardless of race. At its most fundamental level, Shelby County is an abandonment of the Constitution’s protection of the right to vote, one of our most cherished rights.

 

David Gans is director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
March 23, 2021

OP-ED: In wake of Floyd, Taylor killings, should police have power to enter your home without a warrant?

USA Today
A nod from the Supreme Court in case that would give police right to search...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
March 29, 2021

When Women Speak: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law

RBG shifted the rhetorical boundaries of jurisprudence on a wide range of important issues from equal protection to reproductive rights. CAC’s President Elizabeth...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Professor Katie Gibson
Civil and Human Rights
March 24, 2021

CAC Alert: Caniglia v. Strom

SCOTUS is considering whether the “community caretaking” exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement should extend...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
March 12, 2021

SCOTUS Deep Dive: Home Searches, Roberts Dissents (PODCAST)

Bloomberg Law
Supreme Court justices will hear one of their latest Fourth Amendment arguments on March 24...
By: David H. Gans, By Jordan S. Rubin
Civil and Human Rights
March 4, 2021

#PurpleChairChat EXTRA: Discussing Netflix’s Amend series

Discussing Netflix’s docuseries Amend: The Fight for America, which explores the fight for equal rights in...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Karen Tumlin, Melissa Murray
Civil and Human Rights
March 1, 2021

RELEASE: CAC Endorses the Ending Qualified Immunity Act

WASHINGTON -- On the reintroduction today of the Ending Qualified Immunity Act by Congresswoman Ayanna...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra