In the 1908 case of Ed Johnson v. The State of Tennessee, African-American man Ed Johnson was accused and convicted for raping a white woman in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Despite significant issues with his trial including questionable evidence and allegations that his confession was coerced through torture, he was sentenced to death. His lawyers appealed to the U.S Supreme Court arguing that he had been denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. While awaiting their decision, a mob broke into jail where Johnson was held and lynched him before any ruling could be made by the court. This led to contempt proceedings against Sheriff Joseph Shipp who allowed this act of vigilante justice to occur; it marked one of few instances when Supreme Court asserted its authority over state criminal procedures on grounds they violated constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Ed Johnson v. The State of Tennessee, Justice Harlan argued that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to intervene in state criminal cases when constitutional rights were violated. He contended that Johnson's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was infringed upon due to racial prejudice and mob influence on the jury's verdict. Harlan also criticized his fellow justices for not granting a stay of execution, arguing it would have allowed time for proper consideration of these serious allegations. Furthermore, he believed this case represented an opportunity for the court to assert its authority over states' courts and ensure equal protection under law as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment. By failing to do so, he feared they set a dangerous precedent allowing states' courts impunity even when fundamental constitutional rights are at stake.