The U.S. Supreme Court case Abbott v. Brown, United States Marshal for Southern District of Florida in 1915 revolved around the issue of whether a federal court could enjoin a state officer from enforcing an unconstitutional state law that would result in irreparable injury to property rights. The plaintiff, Abbott, was operating a fishery business and claimed that enforcement of certain Florida laws regulating fishing nets were violating his constitutional rights by causing him significant financial harm. He sought an injunction against the defendant, Brown (a U.S marshal), to prevent further enforcement of these laws. The Supreme Court held that while generally federal courts should avoid interfering with the operation of state officers enforcing local regulations unless absolutely necessary; if it is clear beyond doubt that such regulations are unconstitutional and their enforcement will cause irreparable damage then intervention may be warranted. In this particular case however, they found no grounds for granting an injunction as there wasn't sufficient proof provided regarding unconstitutionality or potential damages.

The dissenting opinion in the Abbott v. Brown case, delivered by Justice Holmes, disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court order that denied habeas corpus relief to an individual detained for extradition proceedings. The dissent argued that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to justify holding the defendant for extradition on charges of embezzlement under Florida law. It contended that mere suspicion or belief without concrete proof should not be enough grounds for detention and subsequent extradition. Furthermore, it emphasized due process rights and asserted that every person has a right to fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially when personal liberty is at stake.