In the case of Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Bossier Parish School Board et al., 1996, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a voting district plan could not be rejected under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act solely because it was created with discriminatory intent. The court held that for a redistricting plan to be denied preclearance under Section 5, it must have both discriminatory purpose and effect. In this particular case, Bossier Parish School Board in Louisiana had adopted an electoral redistricting plan which did not increase minority representation despite demographic changes showing significant growth in African-American population. While evidence suggested that racial discrimination may have motivated their decision-making process, there was no proof that the new plan would worsen the position of minority voters compared to past practices - hence failing to meet 'discriminatory effect' criteria as per section 5.

In the dissenting opinion for Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Bossier Parish School Board et al., Justice Souter argued that the majority misinterpreted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. He believed that it was designed to prevent any voting changes with a discriminatory purpose and not just those leading to retrogression (a worsening of minority voters' position). The majority's interpretation, he contended, would allow jurisdictions to implement discriminatory voting changes as long as they did not worsen minorities’ existing level of electoral opportunity. This view contradicted Congress’s intent in passing this law - which was meant to eradicate all forms of racial discrimination in voting procedures. Furthermore, he disagreed with their decision on evidentiary matters; arguing that evidence showing racially polarized voting could be used by courts when determining if a jurisdiction had acted with a discriminatory purpose under Section 5.