The U.S. Supreme Court case George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Al Vera et al., 1995 revolved around the issue of racial gerrymandering in three congressional districts in Texas following the 1990 census which had resulted in an increase in seats for the state from 27 to 30 due to population growth. The plaintiffs argued that redistricting was racially motivated and violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights under Equal Protection Clause as it aimed at creating majority-minority districts where a minority group constituted a majority of voters. In its decision, the court held that race-based redistricting must be subjected to strict scrutiny and can only be justified if it serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal – standards not met by two out of three challenged districts (Districts 18 &29). However, District 30 was upheld since there were significant non-racial motivations behind its creation such as maintaining urban integrity and preserving communities with shared interests.

In the dissenting opinion for George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Al Vera et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on racial gerrymandering and violated principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that race had been used as a predominant factor in redistricting without compelling governmental interest or narrow tailoring to meet such an interest, thus constituting racial gerrymandering which is unconstitutional according to prior Supreme Court decisions like Shaw v Reno (1993). Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to provide clear guidance on how much consideration of race is permissible in redistricting efforts and suggested their ruling could lead to further confusion and litigation over this issue.