Katzenbach v. Morgan
The Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that stopped New York from denying the vote to people who completed sixth grade in Puerto Rican schools taught in Spanish, even though they could not read or write English.
The ruling gave Congress broad power under the Fourteenth Amendment to override state voting rules it judged discriminatory, without requiring courts to first find the state law unconstitutional on its own.
“Correctly viewed, § 5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The majority's core holding on the scope of Congress's power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court struck down § 4(e) as exceeding Congress's power; the government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
New York required voters to read and write English, which had disenfranchised many New York City residents who moved from Puerto Rico and were educated in Spanish-language schools there. Congress passed § 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to let such people vote if they completed sixth grade in a Puerto Rican school. Registered New York voters sued to block enforcement of § 4(e).
The question before the Court
Could Congress require New York to let Puerto Rican migrants vote even if they couldn't read English, overriding the state's literacy test?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that Congress could require New York to let Puerto Rican migrants vote despite the state's English literacy test, because Congress has broad power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to decide, on its own judgment, that a state voting rule is discriminatory and to override it with federal legislation. Courts do not first have to independently rule the state law unconstitutional; it's enough that Congress had a reasonable basis for concluding the law caused unequal treatment.
The Court also rejected the claim that the law was itself unfair for covering only people educated in Puerto Rico and not other foreign-language schools abroad, reasoning that Congress could address one part of a broader problem at a time. It left open whether New York's literacy test would be unconstitutional if judged directly by a court, a question not decided here.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Rican migrants in New York City gained the right to vote despite not reading English, strengthening their political voice. The decision also gave Congress wide latitude to pass civil rights laws overriding state election rules without needing a prior court ruling that those rules were unconstitutional.
What changes now
The judgment of the three-judge district court, which had blocked § 4(e), was reversed, meaning the provision remains valid and enforceable. New York's English literacy requirement cannot be applied to bar voters covered by § 4(e). The decision is a final merits ruling; it does not decide whether English literacy tests are unconstitutional generally, leaving that question open for future cases like Cardona v. Power.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether New York's English literacy requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause on its own, nor did it decide whether excluding people educated in non-American-flag foreign-language schools from § 4(e)'s protection would be unconstitutional if challenged by someone in that group.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Douglas
Justice Douglas joined the majority except for its discussion of whether limiting § 4(e)'s relief to American-flag schools was constitutionally permissible. He reserved judgment on that narrower question until it was raised by someone actually excluded from the law's benefits because they were educated in a non-American-flag school.
Dissent — Justice Harlan
Justice Harlan argued that whether a state law violates the Equal Protection Clause is ultimately a judicial question, not one Congress can resolve for the courts under § 5. He believed New York's English literacy test was rational and constitutional under Lassiter, and that Congress lacked a factual record showing discrimination, so § 4(e) improperly let Congress override a valid state law and blur the line between legislative and judicial power.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court held that Congress's power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Amendment through 'appropriate legislation' is as broad as its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause, using the same test from McCulloch v. Maryland: legislation is valid if it is plainly adapted to a legitimate end and not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution.
- The Court rejected the argument that Congress could only override a state voting law under § 5 if courts independently found that law unconstitutional; instead, Congress itself may determine that a state practice violates the Equal Protection Clause, so long as there is a rational basis for that judgment.
- The Court found § 4(e) 'plainly adapted' to enforcing equal protection because it could reasonably be seen as expanding political power for Puerto Rican New Yorkers, which in turn could help them secure fairer treatment in schools, housing, and law enforcement.
- The Court also found Congress could rationally have concluded that New York's English literacy requirement was itself an invidious discrimination, given exemptions favoring earlier voters and evidence that Spanish-language media let literate Spanish speakers cast informed votes.
- Addressing the claim that § 4(e) unfairly limited relief to those from American-flag schools, the Court applied the deferential rule that reform laws need not address every related problem at once, and found plausible non-discriminatory reasons for the narrower scope Congress chose.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd. (360 U.S. 45)
The Court said Lassiter, which upheld a state literacy test against a judicial equal-protection challenge, did not address whether Congress could override such a law under § 5.