Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 

Supreme Court of the United States

1966

Chapter

3

Title

The Scope of Congresss Powers

Page

302

Topic

Congresss Enforcement Power under the Reconstruction Amendments

Quick Notes

Morgan (P), a registered voter in the City of New York, challenged 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provides that any person who has successfully completed sixth grade in an accredited school in Puerto Rico cannot be denied the right to vote because of lack of English proficiency.  P claims that the law prohibits enforcement of New York election laws based on English proficiency.

Rule

o         Section 5 of 14th Amendment: "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Test to establish if legislation is appropriateness is whether:

1.     Is the end is legitimate?

2.     Are the means not prohibited by and are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         May Congress prohibit enforcement of a state English-literacy voting requirement by legislating under 5 of the 14th amendment, regardless of whether the judiciary would find such a requirement unconstitutional?  Yes

Procedure

Trial

o         The three- judge District Court granted the declaratory injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff

Supreme

o         Supreme Court of the United States reversed

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl Katzenbach

Df Morgan

Description

o          Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides that no person who has successfully completed the sixth primary grade in a public or accredited private school of Puerto Rico in which the language of instruction was other than English shall be denied the right to vote in any election because of his inability to read or write English.

Registered NY Voters Sued

o         Registered voters in New York City brought the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of 4(e) insofar it prohibits the enforcement of the New York elections laws requiring an ability to read and write English as a condition of voting.

District Court

o         The three- judge District Court granted the declaratory injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff.

 [Justice Brennen]

Pl Arg

o         4(e) would not be sustained as appropriate legislation to enforce the Equal Protection Clause UNLESS the judiciary decides.

Thoughts about Sect 5 requiring Judicial Determination

o         Would depreciate both congressional resourcefulness and congressional responsibility for implementing the Amendment.

o         It would confine the legislative power  in this context to the insignificant role of abrogating only those state laws that the judicial branch was prepared to adjudge unconstitutional, or of

o         Merely informing the judgment of the judiciary by particularizing the "majestic generalities" of  sect. 1 of the Amendment.

To secure Puerto Rican nondiscriminatory treatment

o         To prohibit NY from denying the right to vote to large segments of its Puerto Rican Community.

o         In imposing

o    Voting Qualifications

o    Provision or administration of government services

o    Public schools, public housing and law enforcement.

Congressional Authority - Yes

o         It was well within congressional authority to say that this need of the Puerto Rican minority for the vote warranted federal intrusion upon any state interests served by the English literacy requirement.

Congressional Assessment Yes

o         It was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations

o    the risk or pervasiveness of the discrimination in governmental services,

o    the effectiveness of eliminating the state restriction on the right to vote as a means of dealing with the evil,

o    the adequacy or availability of alternative remedies, and

o    The nature and significance of the state interests that would be affected by the nullification of the English literacy requirement as applied to residents who have successfully completed the sixth grade in a Puerto Rican school.

Court - Not for the Court to review Congressional Resolution

o         It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors.

o         It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did.

o         There plainly was such a basis to support 4(e) in the application in question in this case.

New York English Requirement Considerations

o         The desire to provide an incentive for non-English speaking immigrants to learn the English language and in order to assure the intelligent exercise of the franchise.

Congress might have questioned the role of prejudice

o         Congress might well have questioned [if] prejudice played a prominent role in the enactment of the requirement,

Denial of precious right to vote

o    Congress might have also questioned whether denial of a right deemed so precious and fundamental in our  society was a necessary or appropriate means of encouraging persons to learn English

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

o         It was Congress' prerogative to weigh these competing considerations.

Court Enough that we perceive a basis

o         Here again, it is enough that we perceive a basis upon which Congress might predicate a judgment that the application of New York's English literacy requirement to deny the right to vote to a person with a sixth grade education in Puerto Rican schools in which the language of instruction was other than English constituted an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

[Justice Harlan] - DISSENT

Interpreted the decision as adopting a test of rationality

o         For him, it was a judicial question whether the condition with which Congress has thus sought to deal is in truth an infringement of the Constitution.

o         This being something that is the necessary prerequisite to brining the sect. power into play at all.

o         Until today this judgment has always been one for the judiciary to resolve.

o         No factual data showing that Spanish speaking citizens are fully capable of making informed decisions in a NY election as are English-speaking citizens.

o         14th Amendment Swallows States Authority

Rules

Rule

o         Section 5 of 14th Amendment: "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Supplement

Rationale

1.     Congress need not wait for a judicial determination of unconstitutionality before prohibiting the enforcement of a state law.  Congress may enact any legislation that is appropriate.

2.     The test for appropriateness is whether:

a.     Is the end is legitimate?

b.     Are the means not prohibited by and are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

3.     4(e) is plainly adapted to the legitimate end of assuring equal protection to all, including non-English speaking citizens.  P claims 4(e) works an invidious [arose] discrimination in violation of the 5th Amendment by failing to include person attending schools not covered by the law.  But 4(e) extends the franchise and does not restrict or deny P.  The facts that Congress went no further than it did not constitute a constitutional violation.

a.     Its more than just the right to vote, it affects the foundational interests

o         The 14th Amend. gives power to Congress to enact appropriate legislation as long as Congress has a reasonable basis to act

o         Either Congress sees statute causing harm and has not been able to remedy it yet or Congress wants to remedy it before harm is caused

Class Notes