In the case City of Port Arthur, Texas v. United States et al., 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that a city's proposed annexation plan was subject to review under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The city had planned to annex an unincorporated area with predominantly white residents which would have diluted minority voting strength in violation of VRA provisions designed to prevent racial discrimination in voting practices. The Department of Justice objected and blocked the move on these grounds but was overruled by a district court decision stating that such changes were not covered by Section 5. However, upon appeal, this ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court who held that any change affecting voting - even indirectly - fell within Section 5’s purview and thus required federal approval before implementation.

In the dissenting opinion for the case City of Port Arthur, Texas v. United States et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. He argued that it was not intended to ensure minority groups have proportional representation in elected offices but rather to prevent voting practices that would diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice. The justice contended that there was no evidence suggesting a discriminatory purpose behind Port Arthur’s decision to change its electoral system from single-member districts to at-large elections and therefore, he believed it should not be blocked under Section 5. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for overstepping judicial boundaries by essentially legislating from the bench and imposing requirements on local governments which Congress had not explicitly stated in law.