In the case of Moody et al. v. Flowers et al., 1966, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding Alabama's reapportionment plan for its state legislature. The plaintiffs argued that the plan violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by diluting their votes due to unequal population distribution among districts (malapportionment). The District Court had initially dismissed this claim, stating it was a political issue and not within its jurisdiction. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in a unanimous ruling led by Justice Hugo Black. The court held that federal courts do have jurisdiction over such cases as they involve constitutional rights protected under Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment - one person’s vote should be equal to another's ('one-person-one-vote'). It also clarified that there is no requirement for an actual election to take place before challenging malapportionment; potential harm from diluted voting power is sufficient grounds for litigation. This landmark judgment significantly impacted future redistricting efforts across states ensuring fair representation based on population size rather than geographical boundaries or political considerations.

In the dissenting opinion for Moody et al. v. Flowers et al., Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Clark and Stewart, argued that the case should have been dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C §1253. They contended that this section only grants Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases where a three-judge district court has granted or denied an injunction; in this case, no such order was issued as the Alabama reapportionment statute had already been declared unconstitutional by state courts before federal proceedings began. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Baker v Carr (1962), arguing it did not establish a principle that all malapportionment claims are justiciable in federal courts regardless of prior state adjudication on identical issues. They expressed concern about potential interference with states' rights to manage their internal affairs without unnecessary federal intrusion.