In the case of Scranton, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Drew et al., 1964, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over redistricting in Pennsylvania following the 1960 census. The plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were violated because state legislators failed to redraw district lines to reflect population changes revealed by the census data as required by law. They contended this resulted in unequal representation and thus violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, despite acknowledging these concerns as legitimate issues for judicial review under Baker v Carr (1962), which established federal courts' jurisdiction over reapportionment cases, Justice Brennan delivered an opinion stating that it was inappropriate for federal courts to intervene at this stage since there was pending legislation addressing redistricting within Pennsylvania's General Assembly itself.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Scranton, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Drew et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to intervene in state reapportionment issues was a significant overreach of judicial power. He believed that such matters should be left primarily to state legislatures and not subjected to federal court interference unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights or principles. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential political implications and consequences this ruling could have on future cases involving legislative apportionment disputes at both local and national levels. In his view, it would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging more lawsuits challenging electoral district boundaries which could lead to further politicization of judiciary system.