In the case of Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Bossier Parish School Board (1999), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan simply because it may violate Section 2's results test. The court held that for an objection to be made under section five, there must be evidence showing that the voting change was implemented with a discriminatory purpose. In this particular case, Bossier Parish School Board in Louisiana had adopted a new electoral district map which preserved existing racial distributions and did not create any additional majority-black districts despite significant black population growth. While Justice David Souter dissented arguing that such plans should also demonstrate they do not have retrogressive intent or effect on minority voters' rights, his view did not prevail.

In the dissenting opinion for Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Bossier Parish School Board, Justice Souter argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was too narrow and failed to consider its broader purpose: preventing voting discrimination. He contended that any change in voting procedures which has a discriminatory effect should be blocked under Section 5, regardless if it was enacted with discriminatory intent or not. The majority's decision would allow jurisdictions to implement changes with clear discriminatory effects as long as they could prove these were not their primary motivation - an outcome he believed contradicted Congress' intention when drafting this law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on retrogression; arguing that even though a new plan may not worsen minority voters’ position compared to existing conditions (retrogress), it can still violate section 5 if it is intentionally dilutive relative to what might have been enacted without racial bias.