The Douglas v. Green case in 1959 revolved around a habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate, Robert Douglas, who was serving time at the Marion Correctional Institution in Ohio. He claimed that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial because he did not have legal representation and was not informed of his right to one. The Supreme Court ruled against him on the grounds that there wasn't enough evidence to show that he didn't know about this right or couldn't afford a lawyer himself. Furthermore, it stated that since no federal question was presented in the appeal from state court decision denying relief, it lacked jurisdiction to review such decisions under Section 237(c) of Judicial Code as amended.

In the dissenting opinion for Douglas v. Green, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner on federal constitutional grounds without first requiring exhaustion of available state remedies contradicted established precedent. The dissent emphasized that this approach could undermine cooperative federalism by disrespecting states' abilities and responsibilities to correct their own errors within their criminal justice systems. It also noted potential practical problems, such as encouraging prisoners to bypass state courts in favor of federal ones and increasing caseloads for already overburdened lower federal courts. Furthermore, the dissent expressed concern about creating an incentive for defendants not to raise certain issues at trial or on direct appeal in order to preserve them for later collateral attack in a different forum.