In the 1972 case of Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner William Edward Braden who was challenging his indictment by a grand jury in Kentucky while he was incarcerated in Alabama for an unrelated crime. The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed before trial by state prisoners who claim they are being held illegally because their indictments were obtained through unconstitutional means. This decision overturned lower court rulings which had dismissed Braden's petition on grounds that it was premature and not within its jurisdiction since he wasn't "in custody" under the indictment at issue when filing his petition. The Supreme Court clarified that "custody", as used in federal habeas statute, does not necessarily limit itself to physical detention but extends to restraints on liberty imposed as a result of state action.

In the dissenting opinion for Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, Justice William Rehnquist argued that federal courts should not have jurisdiction over state court decisions until all state remedies are exhausted. He believed that the majority's decision to allow a habeas corpus petition before trial undermined this principle and could lead to unnecessary interference in state criminal proceedings by federal courts. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse of such petitions as delaying tactics in criminal trials. In his view, allowing pretrial habeas corpus petitions would disrupt the traditional balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities and potentially undermine public confidence in the judiciary system.