Answer:
Congressional districts must have roughly equal populations if this is feasible.
In an opinion authored by Hugo L. Black, the 6-3 majority held that the district court had jurisdiction because debasement of the right to vote as a result of a state congressional apportionment law was justiciable and not subject to dismissal for "want of equity." The Court further held that the apportionment statute was invalid because it abridged the requirement of Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution that The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Justice Clark concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for nonjusticiability and want of equity, but stated further that Article 1, section 2, does not forbid disproportionate congressional districts and that the case should be remanded for a hearing to determine whether the apportionment statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Harlan dissented on the ground that the Constitution expressly provides that state legislatures and Congress have exclusive jurisdiction over problems of congressional apportionment of the type involved in the case.
Justice Stewart stated that he joined with Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent except insofar as there might be implied in that dissent the view that the issues were not justiciable.
Step-by-step explanation: