In the case of Wright et al. v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al., 1963, a group of African-American and Puerto Rican residents from Manhattan challenged the constitutionality of New York's 1961 congressional redistricting plan under the Equal Protection Clause in Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that it was racially gerrymandered to dilute their voting power by dividing them into different districts with white majorities. The Supreme Court ruled against them in a 5-4 decision stating that there wasn't enough evidence to prove intentional racial discrimination or an actual discriminatory effect on minority voters' ability to elect representatives of their choice. The court held that mere irregularity in district shapes isn't sufficient proof for unconstitutional racial gerrymandering unless accompanied by clear evidence showing purposeful segregation.

In the dissenting opinion for Wright et al. v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al., Justice Douglas argued that the redistricting plan in question was a clear example of racial gerrymandering and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He criticized his colleagues for failing to recognize this fact and suggested that they were turning a blind eye to an obvious case of racial discrimination. According to Justice Douglas, it was not enough for a state's redistricting plan simply to meet mathematical equality; it also had to be free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination based on race or religion. In his view, by approving New York's racially discriminatory redistricting scheme without requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt that no such discrimination existed, the Court was effectively condoning unconstitutional practices.