In Goldstein, aka Pietraru, et al. v. Cox et al., the plaintiffs challenged a New York law that allowed political parties to select their candidates for Congressional seats through party conventions rather than primary elections. The Supreme Court held that this method of selection did not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause as it was argued by the appellants who were voters and potential congressional candidates from Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. They claimed that this system favored party insiders and incumbents over outsiders or new entrants, thus limiting voter choice and stifling political competition which they believed violated their constitutional rights under Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. However, the court ruled against them stating there was no such violation because states have broad powers to regulate their own electoral processes including how parties choose their nominees.

In the dissenting opinion for Goldstein, AKA Pietraru, et al. v. Cox et al., Justice Douglas argued that the case should have been heard by the Supreme Court due to its significance in determining whether a state can constitutionally require nonresidents to pay higher tuition fees at state universities than residents. He believed that this issue raised important questions about equal protection under law and interstate commerce which merited review by the highest court of land. Furthermore, he contended that such differential treatment based on residency could potentially discourage individuals from moving across state lines and thus impede their constitutional right to travel freely within United States borders.