The Stevens v. Marks case in 1965 revolved around the issue of whether a three-judge district court was required to hear a challenge to New York's congressional redistricting plan, which allegedly violated the Equal Protection Clause due to population variances among districts. The Supreme Court held that such cases did not necessarily require a three-judge panel and could be heard by single judges. The decision also clarified that only those constitutional challenges where an injunction is sought against enforcement of state statutes on grounds of unconstitutionality necessitate a three-judge court. This ruling helped define when it is appropriate for federal courts to convene these panels, thereby providing guidance for future litigation involving similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Stevens v. Marks, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law allowing judges to deny bail in certain cases was incorrect and violated constitutional rights. He contended that this ruling allowed for an overreach of state power and undermined the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive bail. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of discretion by judges who could now arbitrarily decide whether or not to grant bail based on their personal judgment rather than objective standards or guidelines. This, according to Justice Harlan, threatened individual liberties and compromised the fairness of judicial proceedings.