In the case of Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama v. Yvonne Kennedy et al., 2007, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Governor Riley. The issue at hand was whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required preclearance for a change to Alabama's constitution that would prevent public officials from holding two government positions simultaneously. This amendment had been approved by voters but challenged by certain individuals who claimed it disproportionately affected black officeholders and thus violated their voting rights. However, the court held that this did not constitute a "change" under Section 5 as it merely clarified existing law rather than creating new policy or altering any electoral procedures or qualifications directly related to racial discrimination in voting.

In the dissenting opinion for Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama v. Yvonne Kennedy et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case as improvidently granted was a mistake. He believed there were important issues at stake regarding Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and its application to changes in voting qualifications or procedures enacted by covered jurisdictions. According to him, these matters deserved full consideration from the Court rather than dismissal on procedural grounds. Furthermore, he disagreed with Chief Justice Roberts' interpretation of precedent related to this issue and felt it could potentially undermine future enforcement efforts under Section 5. In his view, dismissing such an important case without providing clear guidance on these complex legal questions was not only unwise but also unfair to both parties involved.