In the case of Scott, Treasurer of Illinois, et al. v. Germano et al., 1964, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning redistricting in Illinois following the 1960 census. The plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were violated by an apportionment scheme that resulted in unequal representation for voters across different districts due to population disparities among them. The lower court had dismissed this claim without considering its merits and instead suggested it was a political question not suitable for judicial resolution. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that such issues could indeed be adjudicated by courts and remanded back to district court for further proceedings consistent with recent rulings (such as Reynolds v Sims) which clarified one person-one vote principles under Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Scott v. Germano, Justice Harlan argued that federal courts should not intervene in state redistricting matters unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights. He believed that the majority's decision to remand the case back to District Court was an unnecessary intrusion into Illinois' political process and could potentially lead to further litigation and confusion. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts become overly involved in local politics, which could undermine states’ autonomy and disrupt their ability to govern effectively. In his view, it would be more appropriate for such issues to be resolved at the state level unless there is compelling evidence of unconstitutional behavior.