In the case of Norwood et al. v. Kirkpatrick, U.S. District Judge in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding redistricting in Pennsylvania following the 1950 census. The appellants argued that their constitutional rights were violated because they lived in districts with larger populations than others, thus diluting their voting power compared to residents of less populous districts - a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's "one person, one vote" principle. However, Justice Reed delivered an opinion for a unanimous court upholding Pennsylvania's district map and rejecting this argument as it was not proven that there was any deliberate or arbitrary discrimination by state officials against certain voters based on where they resided within these unevenly populated districts.

In the dissenting opinion for Norwood et al. v. Kirkpatrick, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania redistricting plan was incorrect because it violated principles of equal representation. He believed that population should be the primary factor in determining legislative districts and any deviation from this principle would undermine democratic values. The justice also expressed concern about potential political manipulation in district drawing processes if population equality wasn't strictly adhered to as a standard. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on judicial restraint, arguing instead that courts have an obligation to intervene when constitutional rights are at stake.