In Burford et al. v. Sun Oil Co. et al., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of abstention, a principle allowing federal courts to decline hearing a case if it involves complex state law issues better addressed by state courts. The dispute arose when Sun Oil Company challenged the Texas Railroad Commission's decision to grant drilling permits for oil wells near its property, arguing that this would deplete its own reserves and violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court held that since Texas had established an intricate regulatory scheme for managing oil resources and resolving related disputes through administrative procedures followed by judicial review in state courts, federal intervention was unnecessary and inappropriate as it could disrupt this system and create inconsistent rulings on matters of significant local interest.

In the dissenting opinion for Burford et al. v. Sun Oil Co. et al., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to abstain from ruling on a case involving Texas oil regulation was an abdication of its duty as a federal court, and could set a dangerous precedent for future cases where state regulatory schemes are challenged in federal courts. He contended that while deference should be given to states in matters of local concern, this did not mean that federal courts should refrain from exercising their jurisdiction when such matters were brought before them. Furthermore, he expressed concerns about the potential implications of allowing state administrative agencies to have final say over constitutional issues without any possibility of review by federal courts.