Briscoe v. Bell

Background

Texas state officials — the Governor and the Secretary of State — sued federal officials who decide whether a state is covered by the Voting Rights Act, trying to stop publication of determinations that Texas was covered and to get a declaration about how those decisions must be made. They argued the Attorney General wrongly treated English-only elections as a forbidden “test or device,” that the Census Director used improper population figures or the wrong base for counting citizens, and that Texas was denied a pre-determination hearing. The District Court and the Court of Appeals considered and rejected these claims, and the coverage determination was published showing Texas met the statutory thresholds.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether courts have power to review those coverage decisions. It examined the statute’s plain language saying such determinations “shall not be reviewable in any court,” and the legislative history showing Congress intended final, nonreviewable findings to allow swift enforcement against voting discrimination, including new protections for language minorities. The Court concluded Congress unmistakably intended to bar court review of §4(b) coverage determinations, that prior rulings supported this construction, and that the only available judicial route is the narrow bailout procedure in the Act. Because the statutory language is absolute, the Court held the lower courts lacked jurisdiction and ordered the complaint dismissed.

Real world impact

Under this decision, when federal officials say a state is covered by the Voting Rights Act formula, courts cannot overturn that determination; affected states must pursue the narrow bailout process set out in the law. The opinion notes that several jurisdictions have obtained bailouts before, so the statutory route remains available, and one Justice concurred in the judgment.