Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Katzenbach v. Morgan

Supreme Court of the United States · 1966 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSection 5 of Fourteenth AmendmentCongressional powerVoting Rights ActSection 5Fourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection ClauseVoting Rights Act of 1965

Facts

Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided that no person who successfully completed the sixth primary grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which instruction was other than English could be denied the right to vote because of inability to read or write English. New York law required the ability to read and write English as a condition of voting, and many Puerto Rican migrants in New York City had been denied the franchise under that requirement. Appellees, registered New York City voters, challenged § 4(e) insofar as it prevented enforcement of New York's English literacy requirement. The practical effect of the provision at issue was to enfranchise large segments of the Puerto Rican community in New York.

Issue

Whether Congress, acting under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, could prohibit New York from enforcing its English literacy voting requirement against persons educated through the sixth grade in Puerto Rican schools, even without a judicial determination that New York's literacy rule itself violated the Equal Protection Clause as so applied. Also, whether the limitation of § 4(e) to persons educated in American-flag schools made the federal statute itself unconstitutional.

Rule

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a positive grant of legislative power measured by the McCulloch v. Maryland standard: Congress may enact legislation to enforce the Equal Protection Clause if the legislation may be regarded as enforcing the Amendment, is plainly adapted to that end, and is not prohibited by but is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Congress need not wait for, or depend on, a judicial determination that the specific state law displaced by the federal statute is itself unconstitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Civic Access Act, which bars states from denying the vote to citizens who completed sixth grade in public schools in Guam where instruction was primarily Chamorro or Filipino. A county election board in Ohio argues the law is invalid because no court has ever held Ohio's English literacy requirement unconstitutional as applied to that group.

If the challenge reaches federal court, which argument is strongest under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority treated § 5 as a positive grant of legislative power measured by the McCulloch standard. Congress need not wait for a judicial determination that the specific state rule displaced by federal law is itself unconstitutional. The relevant question is whether the federal statute may be regarded as enforcing equal protection, is plainly adapted to that end, and is consistent with the Constitution's letter and spirit.