SCOTUS sends affirmative action case back to lower courts, strikes down outdated Section 4 of Voting Rights Act

Busy week for the Supreme Court this week as justices hand down decisions on several cases before they adjourn for the summer. They're set to rule on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 (the measure passed by the state’s voters defining marriage as between one man and one woman), its decision on a case involving how colleges use affirmative action in admitting students, and rulings on cases involving voting rights, private property, workplace discrimination and generic drugs.

It appears that the SCOTUS has decided to start with the civil rights related cases.

On Monday, the Court sent the affirmative action case back to lower courts...

WashingtonTimes: The Supreme Court on Monday sent a major affirmative action case back to the lower courts to be reheard, ducking the chance to rewrite discrimination laws and instead affirming the current state of law for racial preferences, saying they can be used for admissions but only if there is a compelling need and no other remedy works.

Some legal analysts had predicted the court would use the case from the University of Texas at Austin to issue a broad ruling that would overturn affirmative action policies, but the 7-1 ruling was narrow in scope and didn’t overturn any current laws or court precedents.

Both sides in the affirmative action debate claimed victory, with supporters of preferences saying the court reaffirmed their use while opponents said sending the case back to be reheard under stricter standards shows the justices are leaning toward ending special treatment.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who agreed with the ruling, filed a blistering concurring opinion saying that it was time to end these kinds of racial preferences altogether.

Also yesterday, as an aside, the Supreme Court set a future date to review Obama's unlawful recess appointments...

HotAir: It won’t be for a while, as this session of the Supreme Court will come to an end this week with the release of its most controversial decisions of the term. However, next year, the court will hear arguments on what constitutes a recess, and how much power the President has to make appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Now, back on topic. Today, a significant victory for state's rights was made in a 5-4 decision, striking down key portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act...

TheRightScoop: In short, the Supreme Court struck down the formula used in determining which voting jurisdictions need to ask the DOJ before they can change their voter laws – because of past history of discrimination. The court basically told Congress that the current formula is outdated, given it was established in the 1960s, and gives Congress the opportunity to update it:

AtlanticWire: The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder on Tuesday. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. The court found that the VRA’s formula for deciding which jurisdictions should be subject to preclearance is unconstitutional, SCOTUSblog explains, because while the formula was rational in the 1960s, it’s not anymore. In other words, things are different in the South.

The Alabama county challenged Section 5 of the legislation, which requires that states and counties with a history of trying to block minorities from voting get pre-clearance from the Justice Department to change any voting laws — from the requirements to register to vote to the location of a polling station. Section 4 is the formula that determines what places Section 5 applies to. The majority opinion says, “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

...without section 4 there is no section 5. So basically the DOJ can’t lawfully challenge any state or jurisdiction for changing their voting laws until Congress reestablishes the formula.

Ed Morrissey addresses the likelihood that Congress will reestablish the formula...

HotAir: Will Congress address the court decision with a renovated Section 4? Doubtful, even without Chuck Todd’s conclusion that it’s not “mature enough” to deal with voting rights at all. The problem left by this decision will be to find someplace in America where state law creates endemic racial and ethnic discrimination at a level that requires federal intervention in the state legislative process. Where might that be? The opinion includes this chart showing the difference between white and black voting registration in 1965 and 2004:

The only state where the difference is outside the margin of polling error is, surprisingly, Virginia, where the gap was lowest in 1965. (Look at the improvement in Mississippi, for instance, and ask why it’s still on the Section 4 list.) Rather than interfere with states’ legislative process before the fact (which is what the preclearance provision allows), the DoJ can address Virginia’s current statutes with the rest of the VRA now — without Sections 4 or 5. Congress could designate Virginia only in a revised Section 4, too, but that’s going to be a very tough sell.

Now, let's see where they go from here on the rest of this week's rulings. Hopefully in the right direction.