E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Yesterday, every member of the Supreme Court told Congress that there were serious doubts about the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Bruce Ackerman is confident that the Justices blinked and that they will affirm Section 5's constitutionality when the inevitable next case reaches the Court.
As I explain on Rick Hasen's blog, I have my doubts. The swing vote is Justice Kennedy, and I'm not sure yesterday's decision tells us anything except that he wasn't ready to invalidate Section 5 this Term. Maybe, as Bruce suggests, he will blink again when the case next comes around.
But if we are reading the tea leaves, then Section 5 supporters should be worried about the fact that the Court's four liberals joined Chief Justice Roberts' opinion casting doubts on every major justification for upholding Section 5. As I explain in my post, it is hard to figure out any reason for them to do so other than this: they thought that sending a crystal clear, united message to Congress was Section 5's best hope. That is, the four Justices on the Court may have been convinced that Section 5 will fall when the case returns, and they were hoping that members of Congress will take the hint.
If Congress decides to take the hint, it should take a look at a series of guest blogs that will appear on the American Prospect during the next day as well as several white papers on the Tobin Project's website, which I link here. All of them offer strategies for Congress to fix the problem before the Court fixes it for them. Posted
11:41 AM
by Heather K. Gerken [link]