In the Drudge report, the article states it is section 5. Later the article refers to section 4. A bit confusing. On FOX news, the reporter covering the case said it was section 4.
The Court did not issue a holding on Section 5. They said specifically that Congress is free to legislate a new coverage formula.
The judges didn’t throw out section 5 (preclearence), they threw out section 4, which set the formula for preclearence.
They ruled that the formula was unconstitutional as it doesn’t appy evenly to all states and there is no valid reason today for it not to do so.
The decision effectively throws out section 5 unless Congress comes up with a new formula that applies to all the states.