The Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa case in 1978 revolved around the constitutionality of Alabama's "police jurisdiction" statute, which allowed cities to exercise police and regulatory powers beyond their corporate limits without providing full municipal services or allowing residents within these areas to vote in city elections. The plaintiffs, a civic club and individual residents from an unincorporated community called Holt, argued that this violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights (equal protection). However, the Supreme Court upheld the law with a 6-3 decision. They reasoned that while it was true those living outside city boundaries couldn't vote on matters affecting them directly due to this law, they also didn't have to pay city taxes despite benefiting from some municipal services like police protection. Therefore, there wasn't any violation of equal protection principles as claimed by the plaintiffs.

In the dissenting opinion for Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Alabama's police jurisdiction statute. He argued that this law allowed cities to exercise extraterritorial power without providing full municipal services or allowing residents in these areas to vote in city elections, which he believed was a violation of their constitutional rights. He also criticized the court for failing to apply strict scrutiny when reviewing this case and suggested that they were too deferential towards state legislatures. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by local governments and warned that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues.