The Biddle v. Luvisc case in 1924 involved a prisoner, Luvisc, who was serving a sentence at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. He filed a petition for habeas corpus to challenge his detention by Warden Biddle on grounds that he had been denied due process of law during his trial. The Supreme Court ruled against Luvisc and upheld his conviction and imprisonment. The court found no violation of due process rights as it concluded that the petitioner had received fair notice of charges against him and an opportunity to defend himself before an impartial tribunal with jurisdiction over both subject matter and person involved in the case.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Biddle v. Luvisc, 1924, argued that the petitioner should have been granted a writ of habeas corpus due to his claim that he was unlawfully detained by immigration authorities. The dissent held that the court had jurisdiction over such cases and could review decisions made by administrative bodies like immigration boards. It also emphasized on individual rights and liberties being paramount under U.S law, arguing against arbitrary detention without proper judicial oversight or recourse for appeal. Furthermore, it criticized majority's interpretation of legal precedents which they believed were misapplied in this case leading to an unjust outcome.