In the case of Keith Lance et al. v. Mike Coffman, Colorado Secretary of 2006, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could adjust its congressional districts outside the decennial census cycle. The plaintiffs argued that redistricting more than once per decade violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution which mandates apportionment "among several states...according to their respective numbers" every ten years following each national census. However, in a summary disposition without full briefing or oral argument, the court declined to hear this appeal from a decision by Colorado's Supreme Court upholding mid-decade redistricting under certain circumstances as constitutional under state law and not precluded by federal requirements. This effectively allowed states some latitude in adjusting their district boundaries between censuses if they deem it necessary for fair representation.

In the dissenting opinion for Keith Lance et al. v. Mike Coffman, Colorado Secretary of State (2006), it was argued that the majority's decision to deny standing to plaintiffs who challenged a redistricting plan violated their rights under Article III of the Constitution. The dissenters believed that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient injury in fact because they were voters whose votes would be diluted by an unconstitutional redistricting plan. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of precedent, arguing that past cases did not require proof of specific electoral outcomes or individualized harm for standing in voting rights cases. Instead, they contended any voter should have standing to challenge a state action which potentially dilutes their vote and violates equal protection principles.