In the case of Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit, U.S. District Judge Stephen S. Chandler Jr., challenged an order by the Judicial Council that restricted his ability to hear cases in his district without approval from a chief judge or judicial council member. The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over this matter because it was not a "case" or "controversy," as defined by Article III of the Constitution, but rather an internal dispute within another branch of government - judiciary - and thus outside its purview. The court also noted that Congress had given circuit councils authority to manage their courts' business and judges under 28 USC §332 (the statute establishing judicial councils). Therefore, they could issue such orders if necessary for effective court administration and justice delivery without violating separation-of-powers principles since these bodies are part of Judiciary itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit, Justice Harlan argued that federal courts have no jurisdiction to review decisions made by judicial councils regarding administrative matters within their own circuits. He contended that such issues are internal affairs and should be handled internally without interference from outside bodies. Furthermore, he suggested that allowing external oversight could potentially undermine the independence of individual judges and disrupt the balance of power within the judiciary system itself. In his view, it was not appropriate or necessary for a district judge to seek redress in court over an administrative decision made by a higher judicial body; instead, they should accept and abide by these decisions as part of their role within this hierarchical structure.