In the United States v. Coleman et al., 1967, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an alleged violation of voting rights in Mississippi. The plaintiffs, African American citizens of Humphreys County, Mississippi, claimed that they were denied their right to vote based on race and color by local officials who manipulated voter registration procedures. They sought relief under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which required certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing any voting practices or procedures. The District Court dismissed their complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. However, when appealed to the Supreme Court it was held that these allegations did fall within Section 5's purview as changes in "voting qualifications" or "procedures". Therefore, if proven true at trial they would constitute violations requiring preclearance from federal authorities. Thusly reversing lower court’s decision dismissing complaints against county registrar for allegedly discriminatory administration of literacy tests and good moral character requirements; remanding cases back down for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Coleman, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant was unconstitutional. He contended that such surveillance violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Douglas believed that any information gathered in this manner should be excluded from court proceedings because it was obtained illegally. He also expressed concern about the potential for abuse of power by law enforcement agencies if they were allowed to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance, arguing that this could lead to widespread invasions of privacy and violations of civil liberties.