In the case of Hughes et al. v. WMCA, Inc., et al., 1964, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding apportionment in New York State's legislature. The plaintiffs argued that the existing system was unconstitutional because it violated their right to equal protection under law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment due to population disparities among districts. They claimed that this resulted in unequal representation for voters across different districts - some votes effectively carried more weight than others depending on where they were cast. The defendants countered that legislative apportionment was a political question and thus non-justiciable i.e., not subject to judicial review or intervention. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument and sided with plaintiffs stating that such issues could indeed be reviewed by courts if they potentially infringed upon constitutional rights like equal protection under law. This decision built upon an earlier ruling (Baker v Carr) which had established justiciability of apportionment cases at federal level; now it extended similar principle to state legislatures too thereby setting precedent for future redistricting disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Hughes et al. v. WMCA, Inc., et al., Justice Harlan argued that the court's decision to intervene in New York State's apportionment issues was an overreach of judicial power into a matter best left to state legislatures and voters. He contended that there were no clear constitutional standards or guidelines for determining what constitutes fair representation in legislative bodies, making it inappropriate for federal courts to make such determinations based on vague notions of fairness or equality. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative consequences of this interventionist approach, including undermining public confidence in democratic institutions and creating confusion and instability by constantly changing electoral districts according to shifting population trends.