In the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case between George W. Bush and Richard Cheney versus Albert Gore Jr., et al, the court was tasked with deciding on issues related to the recounting of votes in Florida during that year's presidential election. The initial results were extremely close, prompting a manual recount in certain counties as per Florida law. However, this process raised several concerns about equal protection under law due to varying standards for vote evaluation across different counties. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush and Cheney by a narrow margin (5-4), stating that there wasn't enough time left to establish uniform standards for a new recount before an upcoming federal "safe harbor" deadline - which protects states from Congress questioning their submitted electoral votes if they resolve disputes by this date. This decision effectively awarded Florida's electoral votes – and thus the presidency – to George W.Bush.

In the dissenting opinion for Bush v. Gore, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to halt Florida's recount was an unjustified intrusion into state affairs and undermined citizens' faith in democracy. He contended that there were no constitutional grounds for stopping a recount aimed at ensuring every vote was counted accurately. The Constitution gives states broad authority over their own elections, he noted, and federal courts should not interfere unless absolutely necessary. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential damage to public trust in electoral processes caused by this intervention from the Supreme Court. In his view, it would have been better to allow Florida officials to complete their work rather than impose a solution from Washington D.C., even if it meant waiting longer for final results.