Joel Heller has a very nice piece in the California Law Review Circuit, Subsequent History Omitted, on Westlaw’s aberrant coding of the Shelby County voting rights case as having abrogated the original case upholding voting rights preclearance, South Carolina v. Katzenbach.  From the piece’s conclusion:

In labeling Katzenbach “abrogated by Shelby County,” Westlaw not only made an unwarranted value judgment, but also potentially swayed the course of the law. Advocates dissuaded from relying on Katzenbach could be robbed of a valuable tool for arguing in favor of a revived § 5 or defending other provisions of the VRA, and lower courts may refrain from citing the case. Yet proponents of § 5 and others who believe in the relevance of history should not lay down this tool before it is taken away by a more authoritative source than Westlaw. There is no need to wave the white flag (or, in this case, the red flag) just yet. Law review authors and editors should likewise hesitate before following Westlaw’s instruction to label Katzenbach “abrogated by Shelby County.”Katzenbach, especially its recognition of the relevance of the past, retains an important vitality. “[H]istory did not end in 1965,” and it did not end in 2013, either. Because history lives, this purported subsequent history should be omitted.

Let’s see if Westlaw responds, as it should.