In the case of W. M. C. A., INC., et al. v. SIMON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., 1961, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding New York's apportionment plan for state legislative districts which was challenged by radio station WMCA and others as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to population disparities among districts (malapportionment). The district court had dismissed their complaint without convening a three-judge panel or hearing evidence on grounds that it raised "political questions" not suitable for judicial resolution. The Supreme Court reversed this decision in an opinion delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan II stating that malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause were indeed justiciable issues within federal courts' jurisdiction and should be heard rather than dismissed outright as political matters beyond their purview. This ruling set important precedent affirming federal courts' authority to review redistricting plans for potential constitutional violations and paved way for later landmark decisions like Reynolds v Sims enforcing principle of 'one person one vote'.

In the dissenting opinion for W. M. C. A., INC., et al. v. SIMON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of federalism and judicial restraint by intervening in state election processes without clear constitutional or statutory mandate to do so. He contended that New York's electoral law did not violate equal protection rights as it did not discriminate against any particular group but rather applied uniformly to all candidates and voters within its jurisdictional boundaries; thus, he saw no compelling reason for federal courts to interfere with this aspect of state sovereignty unless there is an explicit violation of individual rights or freedoms under the Constitution.