In the case of North Carolina v. Covington, 2016, the Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by a lower court that had found twenty-eight districts in North Carolina's state legislature were racially gerrymandered and therefore unconstitutional. The lower court ordered new maps to be drawn up and special elections held in those districts. However, North Carolina appealed this decision arguing that it was too disruptive to hold special elections outside of the normal election cycle. The Supreme Court agreed with part of each side’s argument: they upheld the finding that racial gerrymandering had occurred but struck down the order for immediate redrawing of district lines and holding special elections as an overreach by the lower court.

In the dissenting opinion for North Carolina v. Covington, Justice Alito argued that the lower court's order to redraw district lines and hold special elections was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that such a decision should be left to the state legislature unless there is clear evidence of racial gerrymandering or violation of voting rights. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts could mandate redistricting and special elections based on their own interpretations rather than concrete legal standards. This, according to him, would disrupt electoral processes and potentially disenfranchise voters who had already elected representatives under existing maps.