One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What do our legal experts think the result here would be?

Who knows?  I think people are overlooking the possibility that the court took the case to explicitly set the standard as a person is a person, even if they are ineligible to be a voter, but I don't think we'll have idea of what they are thinking until at least oral arguments. If I had to guess, it would be to establish a standard of redistricting according to the apportionment population living there, but might allow for states to use a different definition of what counts as apportionment population for state or local districts than what is used for Federal apportionment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I said, I have not read up on the inter state apportionment issue, but SCOTUS would certainly address both issues in the one case, if they go the CVAP route, because they would have to address that issue in their ruling, or explain why the potential discrepancy would be tolerable.

You mean like how SCOTUS squarely addressed the issue of same-sex marriage in Windsor, thus requiring all fifty States to recognize same-sex marriages since 2013?