South Carolina v. Katzenbach
The Supreme Court upheld the core enforcement tools of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, rejecting South Carolina's challenge to the law's suspension of literacy tests, its review of new voting rules, and its use of federal examiners to register voters in states with histories of discrimination.
The ruling gave Congress broad power to design strong, targeted remedies against racial discrimination in voting rather than relying only on slow, case-by-case lawsuits, clearing the way for a level of federal oversight of elections that reshaped voting across the South for decades.
“As against the reserved powers of the States, Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting.”
The Court's core standard for judging Congress's power to remedy racial discrimination in voting.
How it got here: South Carolina used the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to sue the Attorney General directly, asking the Court to block enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
The Case in Depth
What happened
For decades, several Southern states used literacy tests, "good character" requirements, and similar rules to keep Black citizens from voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment's promise of equal voting rights regardless of race. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to attack this discrimination directly, targeting states and counties with histories of low turnout and discriminatory tests. South Carolina, one of the covered states, sued to block the law's enforcement.
The question before the Court
Did Congress go too far when it passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to stop Southern states from using literacy tests and similar tricks to block Black citizens from voting?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Congress had the power under the Fifteenth Amendment to pass the Voting Rights Act's strong new remedies, including suspending literacy tests, requiring federal review of new voting rules, and sending federal examiners to register voters in states with a history of discrimination. The Fifteenth Amendment lets Congress use any rational, appropriate means to stop racial discrimination in voting, and Congress had gathered extensive evidence that ordinary lawsuits were failing to solve the problem.
The Court found the law's method of targeting specific states and counties based on their past use of discriminatory tests and low voter turnout was reasonable, not an unconstitutional presumption or punishment. It set aside South Carolina's due-process and separation-of-powers objections and dismissed the state's lawsuit, though Justice Black would have struck down the provision requiring advance federal approval of new state voting laws.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The ruling meant South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and parts of other states could no longer use literacy tests to screen voters, and the federal government could send examiners directly into these areas to register Black voters, dramatically expanding Black political participation in regions that had long resisted it.
What changes now
This was a final decision on the merits, resolving South Carolina's constitutional challenge and allowing the Attorney General to keep enforcing the Voting Rights Act's key provisions nationwide. The ruling let the coverage formula, the examiner program, and the review requirements keep operating in the covered states and counties, establishing the framework for federal oversight of discriminatory voting rules that governed elections in those areas for years afterward.
What this does not decide
The Court did not rule on every part of the Act. It left several sections — including the poll-tax provisions and certain criminal penalties — for future lawsuits, either because South Carolina hadn't challenged them or because no one had yet been prosecuted under them. The decision addressed only the specific provisions actually being enforced against South Carolina at the time.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent in part — Justice Black
Justice Black agreed with nearly all of the Court's reasoning upholding the Act's suspension of literacy tests, the coverage formula, and the use of federal examiners. But he would have struck down Section 5, which required covered states to get advance approval from a federal court or the Attorney General before changing any voting rule. He argued this created no genuine case or controversy, amounted to a forbidden advisory opinion, and improperly forced states to beg federal permission before enacting their own laws, undermining basic principles of state sovereignty.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the same standard used to judge any law Congress passes under an express constitutional power: Congress may use any rational means, not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, that are plainly adapted to a legitimate end — the classic test from McCulloch v. Maryland.
- Because Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the ban on racial discrimination in voting through 'appropriate legislation,' the Court held Congress could go beyond case-by-case lawsuits and create sweeping, systemic remedies instead of leaving enforcement solely to the courts.
- The Court found Congress had built a detailed factual record through extensive hearings showing that ordinary lawsuits were too slow and easily evaded to stop persistent discrimination, which justified remedies that took effect automatically rather than only after a court found a specific violation.
- Applying that record, the Court held the formula selecting which states and counties were covered — use of a 'test or device' combined with low voter turnout in 1964 — was rationally tied to areas where discrimination had actually been documented, so it was fair to presume trouble there without requiring fresh proof for each locality.
- The Court rejected arguments that the law's procedural features — barring court review of certain administrative findings, funneling states seeking to escape coverage into a single Washington, D.C. court, and suspending new voting rules until federal approval — violated due process, reasoning these were practical mechanisms tied to a legitimate scheme rather than punishment of individuals.
- Having concluded the challenged provisions were an appropriate and constitutional use of Congress's Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power, the Court found no basis to block the Attorney General from continuing to enforce them.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections (360 U.S. 45)
The Court said this case's rule that literacy tests aren't inherently unconstitutional didn't stop Congress from suspending tests actually used to discriminate.