This Supreme Court is a disgrace
People are celebrating it today. But yesterday’s voting rights call was one of the worst SCOTUS ones ever (UPDATED)
Topics: Supreme Court, Voting Rights, Voting Rights Act, Congress, Conservatives, Justice John Roberts, Marriage equality, Opening Shot, judicial activism, Politics News
Update: Sure enough, four of the Roberts Five cast dissenting votes in the DOMA case that are completely impossible to reconcile with the legal principles they asserted in Shelby County.
Original post:
Later this morning, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decisions in the key marriage equality cases. After yesterday’s performance by the Court, we can no longer be surprised by historically bad jurisprudence.
The voting rights ruling it issued yesterday, Shelby County v. Holder, is one of the very worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Leaving aside the practical effects of the Court’s holding, which are likely to be awful (Texas has already won the race for “first state to enact a change to its voting laws that wouldn’t have been approved by the federal government if the Voting Rights Act could still be enforced”), the opinion is a travesty as a matter of basic legal reasoning.
The easiest way to explain Justice Roberts’ opinion to non-lawyers is by analogy. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that in 1965 the drinking age in 41 states had been 21, while in nine states it was 18. Suppose further that alcohol-related traffic deaths involving teenage drivers were three times higher in the states with the lower drinking age.
Now suppose Congress passed a statute requiring any state that had an unusually high percentage of traffic deaths involving teenage drunk drivers to raise its legal drinking age to 21. Not surprisingly, the nine states in which the drinking age is 18 would all fall into this category.
Now imagine this hypothetical legislation is remarkably successful. Alcohol-related traffic deaths involving teenagers plunge in all nine of the affected states. Congress therefore renews the law on several occasions, and on each occasion the Supreme Court assures Congress, in decisions dealing with challenges to the law, that the law is perfectly constitutional.
But then something remarkable happens: Suddenly the Supreme Court announces that the law is unconstitutional after all. Its reasoning: The law was constitutional when it was passed, because experience has shown that requiring a higher drinking age was a rational legislative response to the problem of alcohol-related deaths involving teenaged drivers. Yet it is no longer constitutional, because the law has worked so well!
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder. More Paul Campos.









