Editors' Summary: In this Article, Michael Allen Dymersky and Jesse J. Richardson Jr. examine the widespread rule of judicial review that a court should not consider evidence of motive in reviewing legislative actions by local government. They evaluate the rule in the context of a rezoning case in Highland County, Virginia, in which a group of plaintiffs conclusively established that improper motive prompted one supervisor to vote in favor of rezoning the subject property. The Highland County Circuit Court invoked the rule against judicial review of motive evidence to foreclose any consideration of the admitted improper personal motives that had inspired that particular rezoning. The authors conclude that the rule against judicial review of motive evidence has outlived its usefulness in the context of rezonings and urge a legislative intervention.