The U.S. Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, 2012 dealt with the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting. The plaintiff, Shelby County from Alabama argued these sections were unconstitutional as they exceeded Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. In a controversial decision by Chief Justice John Roberts for a divided court (5-4), it was ruled that while protecting against racial discrimination in voting is still valid under those amendments, Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because its formula is outdated and no longer responsive to current needs thus violating principles of equal state sovereignty.

In the dissenting opinion for Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a key provision of the Voting Rights Act was misguided and premature. She contended that while progress had been made in combating racial discrimination in voting, it was largely due to the deterrent effect of this very legislation. The preclearance requirement, she argued, played a vital role in maintaining this progress and should not be discarded simply because it has been effective so far. Furthermore, she criticized the majority's reliance on principles of equal sovereignty among states as an inappropriate basis for their ruling since these principles do not appear within the text or history of Voting Rights Act itself nor are they constitutionally mandated when Congress is enforcing Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment rights against state infringement.