The U.S. Supreme Court case Wood, Secretary of State of Mississippi, et al. v. Broom in 1932 revolved around the issue of reapportionment and redistricting in the state of Mississippi following a census count that revealed population shifts within the state's congressional districts. The plaintiffs argued that these changes necessitated a reconfiguration to ensure equal representation for all citizens as per Article I Section 4 Clause 1 (the Elections Clause) of the Constitution which gives states power over their own legislative processes unless Congress intervenes otherwise. However, defendants contended they were not obligated to redraw district lines after each census if it resulted in reducing any existing number of representatives from any county or increasing them beyond five members per district - an interpretation based on their reading of Mississippi’s constitution and laws at that time. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with defendants by ruling there was no federal constitutional requirement compelling states to automatically adjust their congressional districts following every decennial census unless specifically mandated by Congress itself under its powers granted by Elections clause; thus leaving such matters largely up to individual states' discretion barring exceptional circumstances where clear violation(s) against other fundamental rights could be proven.

In the dissenting opinion for Wood, Secretary of State of Mississippi, et al. v. Broom, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state legislature could disregard its constitutional obligation to redistrict after each federal census if it found such action inconvenient or difficult. He argued that this interpretation undermined the clear language and intent of Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the U.S Constitution which mandates apportionment based on population numbers from decennial censuses. According to him, allowing states to ignore their duty would lead to unequal representation in Congress and violate citizens' rights under Equal Protection Clause as well as principles of democratic governance. He also criticized his colleagues for overstepping judicial boundaries by making policy decisions instead of interpreting law.