Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1966

Katzenbach v. Morgan

384 U.S. 641 | 86 S. Ct. 1717 | 16 L. Ed. 2d 828 | 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1337

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Katzenbach v. Morgan read § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment broadly: Congress may enact reasonable, rights-expanding measures to enforce equal protection even when the Court has not independently held the targeted state practice unconstitutional.

Background

Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 barred States from denying the vote to a person who had completed the sixth primary grade in a Puerto Rican public school, or an accredited Puerto Rican private school, whose instruction was predominantly in Spanish, solely because the person could not read or write English. The provision was aimed in practical effect at Puerto Rican citizens who had moved to New York City and were excluded by New York's English-literacy requirement for voting.

New York City voters sued the United States Attorney General and the New York City Board of Elections, seeking to invalidate § 4(e) and to prevent its enforcement. A three-judge federal district court held, over one judge's dissent, that Congress had exceeded its constitutional power and impermissibly displaced New York's authority to set voter qualifications. The Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Congress may, under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit New York from applying its English-literacy voting requirement to Puerto Rican citizens covered by § 4(e), even if a court has not independently held that application of the state requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Holding

Yes. Section 4(e), as applied to Puerto Rican-educated voters in New York, was appropriate legislation to enforce the Equal Protection Clause and therefore superseded New York's contrary literacy requirement under the Supremacy Clause.

Reasoning

Although States ordinarily establish qualifications for voting in state elections, they may not impose qualifications forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 5 gives Congress affirmative authority to enforce the Amendment's guarantees, including equal protection, through appropriate legislation.

The Court rejected the argument that Congress may act only after the judiciary has itself found the displaced state law unconstitutional. That approach would reduce Congress to merely repeating judicial holdings and would fail to give meaningful effect to § 5's express grant of legislative enforcement power.

The Court treated the standard for “appropriate legislation” under § 5 as the familiar McCulloch v. Maryland standard. Congress may select means that are plainly adapted to a legitimate constitutional end and are consistent with the Constitution's letter and spirit.

Congress could reasonably view § 4(e) as enforcing equal protection by protecting the Puerto Rican community in New York against discriminatory treatment. Enfranchising a substantial group previously excluded by the English-literacy rule would strengthen that community's ability to obtain equal treatment in public services, including schools, housing, and law enforcement.

Congress also could reasonably conclude that New York's rule operated as an invidious voter qualification. The State's asserted interests in encouraging English learning and ensuring informed voting could be questioned in light of exemptions in the law, evidence of prejudice in the rule's origins, the availability of less restrictive alternatives, and the substantial Spanish-language sources of political information available to Puerto Rican voters.

The Court did not decide whether the Equal Protection Clause, standing alone, invalidated New York's literacy rule as applied to Spanish-literate Puerto Rican voters. Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board had upheld literacy tests in general, but it did not resolve Congress's separate power under § 5 to prohibit this particular application of New York's law.

Issue #2

Whether § 4(e) itself violated the Fifth Amendment by extending protection to persons educated in American-flag, non-English-language schools but not to persons educated in comparable foreign schools.

Holding

No. Congress permissibly limited its reform measure to the group covered by § 4(e).

Reasoning

The challenged distinction did not deny anyone the vote; it limited the reach of a statute that expanded voting rights otherwise withheld under state law. The heightened scrutiny applicable to classifications that restrict fundamental rights therefore did not govern this challenge to the scope of federal relief.

Congress need not address every aspect of a problem at once. It could proceed incrementally and target the phase of the problem it regarded as most acute.

Congress had rational grounds for focusing on persons educated in American-flag schools, especially Puerto Rican schools. It could have relied on its greater familiarity with those schools, Puerto Rico's distinctive relationship with the United States, federal acceptance of Spanish as an instructional language in Puerto Rico, and federal policies that encouraged migration from Puerto Rico to the States.

Concurrences

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas joined the Court's opinion except for its discussion of the Fifth Amendment challenge to § 4(e)'s limitation to persons educated in American-flag schools. He reserved judgment on that question because no member of the excluded class—persons educated in non-American-flag schools—was before the Court.

Dissents

Justice Harlan

Reasoning

Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Stewart, concluded that New York's English-literacy requirement was constitutional. In his view, the franchise is primarily a matter of state concern, subject to federal constitutional limits, and equal protection invalidates a voting qualification only when it lacks a rational basis.

Applying that standard, Justice Harlan found New York's rule rationally related to the legitimate objective of promoting informed voting. English-speaking voters had access to a broader range of political information; government business, ballots, and campaigns were conducted in English; the test was simple and uniformly administered; and New York offered adult education classes. Lassiter, which upheld an English-literacy test, therefore supported the State rather than the challenger.

Justice Harlan distinguished Congress's broad authority to remedy established constitutional violations from an asserted power to determine for itself what the Fourteenth Amendment substantively forbids. In his view, whether New York's law actually violated equal protection was ultimately a judicial question that had to be answered before Congress's § 5 remedial power could be invoked.

He argued that the majority allowed Congress effectively to redefine the Fourteenth Amendment and to override a state law that the Court itself would uphold. Congress's legislative judgments and factual investigations could inform judicial constitutional analysis, but they could not replace the judiciary's duty to decide whether a constitutional violation existed.

Justice Harlan also found no adequate legislative record showing either that Spanish-literate voters were as able as English-literate voters to make informed electoral choices or that § 4(e) was a remedy for discrimination against Puerto Rican residents in public services. Allowing a contrary congressional assertion alone to displace New York's law, he warned, threatened both separation of powers and the constitutional balance between federal and state authority.