The Court rejected Tennessee’s argument that legislative apportionment claims were categorically barred as political questions. Instead, it emphasized that the political question doctrine is limited and applies only in specific circumstances defined by clear criteria.

Applying the newly articulated factors, the Court found that none compelled dismissal. First, the Equal Protection Clause does not textually commit legislative apportionment issues to another branch of government. While the Constitution grants states authority over elections, it does not insulate them from constitutional scrutiny.

Second, the Court determined that judicially manageable standards were available. The plaintiffs’ claim—that their votes were diluted relative to others—could be evaluated under established Equal Protection principles. This distinguished the case from prior cases involving issues such as foreign policy or impeachment, where courts lack clear standards.

Third, resolving the case did not require the Court to make a policy determination reserved for political branches. Instead, the Court’s role was limited to determining whether the state’s apportionment scheme violated constitutional guarantees.

The Court also rejected concerns about institutional respect or potential embarrassment. Adjudicating constitutional claims against state action is a core function of the judiciary, and declining to hear such cases would undermine the enforcement of constitutional rights.

By carefully analyzing the political question doctrine, the Court clarified that not all cases with political implications are nonjusticiable. The key inquiry is whether the issue itself is constitutionally committed elsewhere or lacks judicially manageable standards—not whether it is politically sensitive.