In the case of Cousins et al. v. Wigoda et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute over delegate credentials at the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The Illinois state party, led by William Cousins, had selected one group of delegates while another group loyal to Mayor Richard J. Daley and represented by Albert E. Bennett (Wigoda) claimed they were rightfully elected under national party rules. The State courts sided with Cousins' delegation but when Wigoda's delegation appealed to the Credentials Committee of the National Party Convention, it ruled in their favor allowing them to be seated instead. Cousins then sought an injunction from federal court arguing that this decision violated his constitutional rights as well as those of his fellow delegates and voters who supported them; however, both district court and appeals court denied relief stating that judicial intervention would infringe upon political questions best left for resolution within party ranks. Upon reaching Supreme Court review though, it reversed these decisions holding that federal courts should abstain from interfering with internal operations or disputes within political parties especially concerning credentialing process for national conventions due its potential chilling effect on free association rights protected under First Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Cousins et al. v. Wigoda et al., Justice William Rehnquist argued that the Supreme Court should not have intervened in this case as it was essentially a dispute within a political party, which did not warrant constitutional adjudication. He believed that such disputes were better resolved by political means rather than judicial intervention. Furthermore, he contended that even if there was a need for court involvement, it should be limited to ensuring fair procedures rather than dictating specific outcomes or interfering with the Democratic Party's ability to select its own delegates and establish its own rules. In his view, the majority decision overstepped these boundaries and infringed upon internal party affairs.