South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Media Items

Oral Argument, Part 1

Expanded View

Download MP3

Oral Argument, Part 2

Expanded View

Download MP3

Advocates

Charles Clark (Argued the cause for the State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Levin H. Campbell (Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, (Defendant, argued the cause pro se)

R. D. McIlwaine, III (Argued the cause for the Commonwealth of Virginia, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Francis J. Mizell, Jr. (Argued the cause for the State of Alabama, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Daniel R. McLeod (Argued the cause for the plaintiff)

David W. Robinson, II (Argued the cause for the plaintiff)

Joe T. Patterson (Argued the cause for the State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Alan B. Handler (Argued the cause for the State of New Jersey, as amicus curiae, in support of the defendant)

Richmond M. Flowers (Argued the cause for the State of Alabama, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Jack P. F. Gremillion (Argued the cause for the State of Louisiana, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

E. Freeman Leverett (Argued the cause for the State of Georgia, as amicus curiae, in support of the plaintiff)

Case Basics

Docket No.:

22 ORIG

Plaintiff:

South Carolina

Defendant:

Katzenbach

Decided By:

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion:

383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Argued:

January 17-18, 1966

Decided:

Monday, March 7, 1966

Issues:

Civil Rights, Voting Rights Act of 1965

Categories:

juveniles, judicial review, separation of powers, voting, discrimination

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, South Carolina v. Katzenbach , 383 U.S. 301 (1966)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_22_orig)

Facts of the Case:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Federal examiners, under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities.

Question:

Did the Act violate the states' rights to implement and control elections?

Conclusion:

The Court upheld the law. Noting that the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment gave Congress "full remedial powers" to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the Act was a "legitimate response" to the "insidious and pervasive evil" which had denied blacks the right to vote since the Fifteenth Amendment's adoption in 1870.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Katzenbach, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

Sort by Ideology