Morris v. Gressette 18 19, 1977
| Decision Date | 20 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1583,75-1583 |
| Citation | 53 L.Ed.2d 506,432 U.S. 491,97 S.Ct. 2411 |
| Parties | Frances MORRIS and Maxine Woods, Appellants, v. L. Marion GRESSETTE et al. Argued April 18-19, 1977 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes two alternative methods by which States subject to the Act can obtain federal preclearance review of a change in their voting laws: (1) the State may file a declaratory judgment action in the District Court for the District of Columbia and subsequently may implement such change if that court declares that the change has no racially discriminatory purpose or effect; or (2) the State may submit the change to the Attorney General and subsequently may enforce the change if the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within 60 days. A plan reapportioning the South Carolina Senate, enacted into law on May 6, 1972, and filed with the District Court for the District of South Carolina, which had invalidated a previous plan in a consolidated action challenging its constitutionality, was submitted to the Attorney General on May 12 for preclearance review under § 5. On May 23 the District Court found the new plan constitutional, and on June 30 the Attorney General notified South Carolina that he would interpose no objection but would defer to the court's determination. Thereafter, another suit was brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Attorney General's failure to object to the new plan, and in response to that court's order of May 16, 1973, to make a reasoned determination as to the constitutionality of the new plan, the Attorney General stated that in his view it was unconstitutional but that he still refused to interpose an objection in deference to the ruling of the District Court for the District of South Carolina. However, on July 19, 1973, the District Court for the District of Columbia directed the Attorney General to consider the new plan without regard to the other District Court's decision, and the next day the Attorney General interposed an objection to the plan. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, holding that the Attorney General's initial failure to interpose an objection was reviewable and that § 5 required him to make an independent determination on the merits of the § 5 issues. The present suit was then filed by appellant South Carolina voters in the District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking to enjoin implementa- tion of the new plan on the ground that the Attorney General had interposed an objection and the State had not subsequently obtained a favorable declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge court dismissed the complaint, holding that the collateral-estoppel doctrine did not preclude it from considering the State's contention that, notwithstanding the Court of Appeals' decision in the previous action, the requirements of § 5 were satisfied when the Attorney General failed to interpose an objection within 60 days after submission of the new plan to him, and that the Administrative Procedure Act did not authorize judicial review of the Attorney General's initial determination to defer to the ruling that the new plan was constitutional, and that therefore the Attorney General's failure to interpose a timely objection left South Carolina free to implement the new plan. Held: The objection interposed by the Attorney General to the new plan on July 20, 1973, nunc pro tunc, is invalid, and therefore South Carolina is free to implement such plan. Pp. 499-507.
(a) The nature of the § 5 remedy, which has been characterized as an "unusual" and "severe" procedure, strongly suggests that Congress did not intend the Attorney General's actions under that provision to be subject to judicial review. Unlike the first alternative method of obtaining a declaratory judgment, § 5 does not condition implementation of changes in voting laws under the second method of compliance on an affirmative statement by the Attorney General that the change is without racially discriminatory purpose or effect, but, to the contrary, compliance with § 5 under this second method is measured solely by the absence, for whatever reason, of a timely objection on the Attorney General's part. Pp. 501-503.
(b) In light of the potential severity of the § 5 remedy, the statutory language, and the legislative history, it is clear that Congress intended to provide covered jurisdictions with an expeditious alternative to declaratory judgment actions by providing submission to the Attorney General as such an alternative. Since judicial review of the Attorney General's action would unavoidably extend the period specified in the statute, it is necessarily precluded. Pp. 504-505.
(c) Where the discriminatory character of an enactment is not detected upon review by the Attorney General, it can be challenged in traditional constitutional litigation, but it cannot be questioned in a suit seeking judicial review of the Attorney General's exercise of discretion under § 5, or his failure to object within the statutory period. Pp.505-507.
425 F.Supp. 331, affirmed.
The issue in this case concerns the scope of judicial review of the Attorney General's failure to interpose a timely objection under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to a change in the voting laws of a jurisdiction subject to that Act.
The events leading up to this litigation date back to November 11, 1971, when South Carolina enacted Act 932 reapportioning the State Senate.1 South Carolina promptly submitted Act 932 to the Attorney General of the United States for preclearance review pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (1970 ed., Supp. V).2 That section forbids States subject to the Act to implement any change in "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" without first (i) obtaining a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race of color," or (ii) submitting the change to the Attorney General and receiving no objection within 60 days. 3 While the Attorney General had Act 932 under review, several suits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina challenging that Act as violative of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and seeking to enjoin its enforcement until preclearance had been obtained under § 5. The cases were consolidated and a three-judge District Court was convened.
On March 6, 1972, the Attorney General interposed an objection to Act 932. 4 Although the South Carolina District Court was aware of this objection an objection that, standing alone, would have justified an injunction against enforcement of the Act the court proceeded to address the constitutional validity of the reapportionment plan.5 That court rejected the Fifteenth Amendment claim for lack of evidence that Act 932 was racially motivated, but held that the Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment due to malapportionment. The court retained jurisdiction and allowed South Carolina 30 days to enact an acceptable substitute reapportionment plan. Twiggs v. West, Civ. No. 71-1106 (S.C. Apr. 7, 1972).
On May 6, 1972, a new senate reapportionment plan was enacted into law as § 2 of Act 1205.6 This new plan was filed with the District Court, and it was submitted to the Attorney General on May 12 for preclearance review. On May 23 the District Court found the plan constitutional.7 By letter dated June 30, the Attorney General notified South Carolina that he would not interpose an objection to the new plan because he felt "constrained to defer to the . . . determination of the three-judge District Court" in Twiggs v. West, supra.8 App. 48. Thus, as of June 30, 1972, § 2 of Act 1205 had been declared constitutional by a three-judge District Court, and the Attorney General had declined to interpose an objection under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act.9
Not content with the Attorney General's decision to defer to the judicial determination of the three-judge District Court, several of the named plaintiffs in the consolidated Twiggs action commenced another suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on August 10, 1972, in which they challenged the Attorney General's failure to object to the new senate reapportionment plan. On May 16, 1973, that court ordered the Attorney General to make "a reasoned decision in accordance with his statutory responsibility." Harper v. Kleindienst, 362 F.Supp. 742, 746 (1973). In response to this order, the Attorney General stated that in his view the plan violated the Fifteenth Amendment, but he reaffirmed his refusal to interpose an objection on the ground that he was constrained to defer to the ruling of the District Court in Twiggs v. West. App. to Brief for Appellants 4a. On July 19, 1973, the District of Columbia District Court directed the Attorney General to consider Act 1205 without regard to the decision in Twiggs v. West. The next day the Attorney General interposed an objection because he was "unable to conclude that Act No. 1205 does not have the effect of abridging voting rights on account of race." App. 52.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. It held that the Attorney General's decision not to interpose an objection was reviewable under the circumstances of this case, 10 and that § 5 requires him to make an independent determination on the merits of § 5 issues. Harper v. Levi, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 321, 520 F.2d 53 (1975).
Armed with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Civil Action 02-01297 (HHK) (D. D.C. 10/30/2003)
...v. MCorp. Fin. Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 44 (1988); see also Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535, 542 (1988) (plurality opinion); Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491, 501 (1977); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967); Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367, 379-80 (1962); Int'l Ladies' Garment W......
-
Lee v. Board of Ed. of City of Bristol
...Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 409 F.2d 375, 379, (7th Cir. 1967); Morris v. Gressette, 425 F.Supp. 331, 340-41, affirmed, 432 U.S. 491, 97 S.Ct. 2411, 53 L.Ed.2d 506 (1976); Feinson v. Conservation Commission, 180 Conn. 421, 428, 429 A.2d 910 (1980); A.P. & W. Holding Corporation v. Planning & Z......
-
People's Counsel v. Public Service Com'M
...other than statutory text. Southern Railway Co., supra n. 3, 442 U.S. 444, 457, 99 S.Ct. 2388, 2395; Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491, 517, 97 S.Ct. 2411, 2426, 53 L.Ed.2d 506 (1977); Note, Statutory Preclusion of Judicial Review Under the APA, 1976 DUKE L.J. 431, 437-42. Courts have, none......
-
US NUCLEAR REG. COM'N v. Radiation Tech., Inc., Civ. A. No. 80-2187.
...precluded judicial review or committed the challenged action entirely to administrative discretion.'" Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491, 501, 97 S.Ct. 2411, 2418, 53 L.Ed.2d 506 (1977) (quoting Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 165, 90 S.Ct. 832, 836, 25 L.Ed.2d 192 Since no provision in the......
-
Reconnecting doctrine and purpose: a comprehensive approach to strict scrutiny after Adarand and Shaw.
...Voting Rights Act of 1965, as Amended, 28 C.F.R. [sections] 51.52(a) (1999). (198) Id. at [sections] 51.44(a). (199) Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491,505 n.21 (200) See 42 U.S.C. [sections] 1973b(a)(8) (1994). (201) The coverage formula was amended in 1970 to permit extension of coverage t......
-
Judicial review of environmental compliance orders.
...Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971). (28.) Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 347 (1984); Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491, 501 (1977); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567 (1975); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 166 (1970); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.......
-
Fred Gray: life, legacy, lessons.
...See Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976). (64) 42 U.S.C. [section] 1973c(a). (65) Id. (66) Id. (67) See Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491, 504-05 (1977) (holding section 5 decisions final and not subject to judicial (68) The VRA has not been without controversy. Currently, challe......