In Darr v. Burford, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that federal courts should abstain from interfering with state court proceedings in criminal cases unless there is an extraordinary circumstance where a person's constitutional rights are being violated. The case involved a man named Darr who was convicted and sentenced to death in Oklahoma for murder. He appealed his conviction to the U.S Supreme Court on grounds that he had been denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not given adequate time to prepare his defense before trial. However, instead of directly reviewing his claim, the Supreme Court decided it would be more appropriate for him to first exhaust all possible remedies within Oklahoma’s judicial system before seeking relief at a federal level.

In the dissenting opinion for Darr v. Burford, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that federal courts should not be barred from hearing habeas corpus petitions simply because state court remedies had not been exhausted. He contended that this rule was a departure from established principles of law and could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice by preventing federal review in cases where there were serious constitutional issues at stake. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential for abuse if states knew they could avoid federal scrutiny by creating procedural hurdles or delaying tactics. In his view, it was essential for maintaining public confidence in the legal system that all defendants have access to a fair and impartial tribunal capable of enforcing their constitutional rights.