see my comment below - it's not the single state-wide that i have the problem with, it's the double-representation. a single state rep, if it is the only rep, just means the congressional district happens to be the state's borders.

but the utah case means some people will, during the transition, get double-representation. they will get a vote in congress for their district and a second for their state's at-large, and that goes against the spirit of the constitution and the intent of the House as representative, regardless of whether or not it has been done before and merely never challenged legally/constitutionally.