The case of Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections in 2016 revolved around the issue of racial gerrymandering, a practice where electoral district boundaries are drawn to favor one race over another. The plaintiffs argued that twelve legislative districts in Virginia were racially gerrymandered, violating the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. They claimed that these districts were designed with an inflexible racial threshold which led to packing African-American voters into certain districts and diluting their voting power elsewhere. However, the District Court upheld all but one of those challenged districts as constitutional since race was not found to be a predominant factor in their creation. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that while it is permissible for states to consider race when redistricting if they have good reason to do so (such as compliance with federal Voting Rights Act), it cannot predominate over traditional redistricting principles unless strictly necessary under compelling state interest test.

In the dissenting opinion for Bethune-Hill v. VA Board of Elections, Justice Alito argued that the majority misinterpreted previous rulings and incorrectly applied a standard of review. He contended that race can be one among many factors considered when drawing district lines without automatically triggering strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The majority's decision to apply this level of scrutiny whenever race is a factor, he argued, was not supported by precedent and could lead to unnecessary litigation in future redistricting cases. Furthermore, he disagreed with their conclusion that District 75 was racially gerrymandered because it failed to consider compelling evidence showing other legitimate reasons for its design.