Another Supreme Court case that touched on appropriation was the 1992 case, US Department of Commerce et al. v Montana et al. Although this case was not about the total number of representatives in the House, it did review how the apportionment of the 435 was calculated.
In the early 1990s, the state of Montana went to court over a big question: How should seats in the U.S. House of Representatives be divided among the states after the census? The case started in federal court as State of Montana v. U.S. Department of Commerce and later reached the Supreme Court as United States Department of Commerce v. Montana. These cases were about math, fairness, and the Constitution, not necessarily in that order.
Why the Case Happened
After the 1990 census, Montana lost one of its two House seats. Under the federal formula called the Hill Method or “method of equal proportions,” Montana’s population was considered too small to keep both seats. Montana argued this was unfair. The state said if it kept two seats, each congressional district would actually be closer to the “ideal” district size than having one very large district. Montana preferred the Dean Method. To throw the numbers out there:
| Average District Size (Hill) | Average District Size (Dean) | |
| Montana | 803,655 | 401,828 |
| Washington | 543,105 | 610,993 |
Based on numbers alone, Montana seems to have a point as Washington’s representation ratio increases much less than Montana’s declines. Montana believed the federal formula violated the Constitution’s promise of equal representation.
The Federal District Court Decision (1991)
In State of Montana v. U.S. Department of Commerce, a three-judge panel agreed with Montana. The judges ruled the apportionment method used by Congress was unconstitutional because it did not create the greatest possible equality among congressional districts. Montana also argued Congress had improperly allowed the Department of Commerce to handle apportionment automatically instead of requiring Congress itself to vote on the final distribution of seats. The district court sided with Montana and blocked the government’s plan. This was a major decision because no state had successfully challenged the congressional apportionment formula before.
One of the judges did concur in part and dissented in part. His agreement was based on procedural grounds, Montana had standing and the claims were justiciable (not political questions), but did not agree Congress’ method for allocating House seats violated the Constitution.
The Supreme Court Case (1992)
The federal government appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court in United States Department of Commerce v. Montana. In a unanimous decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court. The Court ruled Congress has broad power to choose a reasonable method for dividing House seats among the states. The justices said the “method of equal proportions” was constitutional because it was carefully studied, had been used for decades, and treated states fairly overall. The Court explained perfect mathematical equality between districts is impossible when each state must receive whole-number seats. Because of that, Congress must have flexibility in choosing a method that works across all 50 states.
The justices also rejected Montana’s argument that Congress had improperly delegated power to the Department of Commerce. The Court found that Congress had legally created the process in advance through federal law.
Summary of the Supreme Court Oral Arguments
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March 1992, both sides focused heavily on fairness and mathematics. Montana argued the current formula failed to provide equal representation because Montana voters ended up with much larger districts than voters in some other states. The state claimed that another mathematical method would create districts closer in size to the national average. The federal government responded no apportionment system can create perfect equality because House seats cannot be split into fractions. Government lawyers argued that Congress had studied several methods over many years before choosing the current system in 1941.
Several justices questioned whether courts should second-guess Congress on such technical mathematical decisions. The discussion suggested concern about whether judges were equipped to decide which formula was “best.” The government also stressed that changing the system could create political instability because states would constantly challenge census results whenever they lost seats.
By the end of the arguments, it appeared that many justices believed Congress deserved flexibility in choosing an apportionment method, as long as the method was reasonable and applied fairly nationwide. That view ultimately became the Court’s unanimous opinion.
Why the Case Matters
United States Department of Commerce v. Montana remains important because it confirmed Congress has wide authority over congressional apportionment. The case also showed how difficult it is to balance mathematical fairness with political representation. Even tiny differences in population can determine whether a state gains or loses representation in Congress. Today, the “method of equal proportions” approved in this case is still used after every census to divide House seats among the states. The case also showed why an arbitrary cap on the number of Representatives destroys equal representation in districts across the country…that is what needs to change.