In the case of Chapman et al. v. Meier, Secretary of State of North Dakota (1974), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court in North Dakota had overstepped its authority by implementing a state legislative redistricting plan without giving adequate consideration to local political boundaries and interests. The controversy began when the state legislature failed to enact an acceptable reapportionment scheme following the 1970 census, leading plaintiffs to seek judicial intervention. While acknowledging that courts can impose interim plans in such circumstances, particularly where elections are imminent or there's no prospect for legislative action, Justice Byron White writing for majority held that any such plan must adhere as closely as possible to established policies and standards set out by state law unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.

In the dissenting opinion for Chapman et al. v. Meier, Secretary of State of North Dakota, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds in imposing a redistricting plan on North Dakota without giving state institutions an opportunity to address the issue first. They contended that this was contrary to previous court decisions which prioritized states' rights in such matters unless there was clear evidence of discriminatory intent or effect in their existing plans. The justices also expressed concern about potential political bias influencing judicially imposed plans and suggested that courts should only intervene as a last resort when it is evident that state authorities are unwilling or unable to create constitutionally acceptable districts themselves.