In the case of Sixty-Seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens et al., 1971, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a three-judge federal district court had overstepped its authority when it redrew the boundaries for Minnesota's state legislative districts. The issue arose after an initial lawsuit claimed that existing district lines violated the "one person, one vote" principle established by previous Supreme Court rulings because they did not reflect changes in population distribution. While agreeing with this claim, the Supreme Court held that only state legislatures or apportionment boards have constitutional power to redraw such boundaries and ordered them to do so instead. Furthermore, it clarified that federal courts could intervene if states failed to act but should limit their involvement to determining whether proposed plans complied with constitutional requirements rather than creating their own.

In the dissenting opinion for SIXTY-SEVENTH MINNESOTA STATE SENATE v. BEENS et al., 1971, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the Court should not have intervened in this case as it was a political issue rather than a judicial one. He believed that redistricting matters were best left to state legislatures and local governments, who are more familiar with their own communities' needs and interests. Furthermore, he contended that federal courts lacked both the expertise and resources necessary to effectively manage such complex issues themselves. By involving itself in these affairs, Douglas warned that the Supreme Court risked overstepping its constitutional boundaries and undermining democratic principles by substituting its judgment for those of elected officials.