In the case of Burns v. Richardson, 1965, the Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to Hawaii's method of apportioning state legislative districts. The plaintiffs argued that by excluding military personnel and their families as well as university students and inmates from its population count for districting purposes, Hawaii violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires states to provide equal representation for all citizens. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice William J Brennan Jr., the court upheld Hawaii's system stating it was not constitutionally required to include transients or short-term residents when determining legislative districts. The ruling established that while total population is an acceptable basis for apportionment under most circumstances, states have some discretion in choosing whom they consider inhabitants.

In the dissenting opinion for Burns v. Richardson, Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the majority's decision to uphold Hawaii's apportionment scheme was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases. He contended that by allowing a state to exclude certain segments of its population (in this case, military personnel and their families) from its reapportionment calculations, the Court was effectively sanctioning unequal representation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential manipulation or abuse of such exclusionary practices by states seeking to gain political advantage. In his view, all individuals residing in a state should be counted for purposes of legislative apportionment regardless of their voting eligibility or temporary status.