In the case of Dixon v. Duffy, Warden in 1952, petitioner Dixon was convicted for first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a California court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether or not the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury on second-degree murder violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defense argued that there was evidence supporting a lesser charge of second-degree murder which should have been considered by the jury as an alternative verdict option. However, after reviewing all presented evidence and arguments from both sides, it was determined that no rational basis existed for such instruction since all facts pointed towards premeditated killing - constituting first degree murder only. Therefore, it concluded that failure of giving instructions on second degree did not violate any constitutional rights of defendant because they were irrelevant given circumstances surrounding this particular crime scene and nature thereof; hence affirming lower court's decision without dissent.

In the dissenting opinion for Dixon v. Duffy, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to district court. He argued that there was no constitutional violation in denying a writ of habeas corpus since it is not an absolute right but one subject to procedural limitations set by Congress. The petitioner had failed to exhaust all available state remedies before seeking federal relief which he believed should have led to dismissal of his petition as per existing laws at that time. Furthermore, he contended that even if exhaustion were not required, there still existed no grounds for granting relief because California law did not violate due process or equal protection clauses under Fourteenth Amendment as alleged by petitioner.