I disagree. This is more like the Court upholding a flag burning law by saying you surely can ban flag burning, but the part of your law specifically banning burning 48 star flags is too out of date.

So are we saying that localities have no legal recourse in poor legislation that's otherwise legally enacted? Not every case that comes before the Supreme Court is necessarily Constitutionally-ambiguous in nature, no?

Section 5 is upheld. They did not decide that it was against the Constitution to hold certin states to higher scrutiny based on past offenses. What they did was say the formula was out of date even though Congress examined 15,000 pages of evidence to uphold it only 7 years ago. That's legislating.

If so, yeah, on the surface I'd probably agree.