28 C.F.R. § 51.49
Absence of judicial review
The decision of the Attorney General not to object to a submitted change or to withdraw an objection is not reviewable. The preclearance by the Attorney General of a voting change does not constitute the certification that the voting change satisfies any other requirement of the law beyond that of section 5, and, as stated in section 5, “(n)either an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2012–2014 · leading case: Harris v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (D. Ariz. 2014).
Harris v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (D. Ariz. 2014). “In the teeth of this explicit disclaimer that the Attorney General does not examine inequality of population and gives no protection against future challenge for it, any advice that unequal population is immunized from later challenge if it might help persuade the Attorney…”
State of Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012). “§§ 1973c(a), 1973b(f)(2); see 28 C.F.R. § 51.49 (“The decision of the Attorney General not to object to a submitted change or to withdraw an objection [under section 5] is not reviewable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.