In the case of Ex Parte Buder in 1925, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy. The petitioner, Buder, had been convicted for contempt by a District Court after he failed to obey an order to turn over certain assets as part of bankruptcy proceedings. He sought relief from his conviction via habeas corpus petition at the Supreme Court level. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction and denied his request for relief. The court reasoned that because Buder's disobedience constituted a clear obstruction to public administration and judicial process in handling bankruptcy matters, it was within its jurisdiction and power to punish him accordingly for contempt without violating any constitutional rights or principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Buder, Justice McReynolds expressed his disagreement with the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the petitioner was denied due process under law as he was not given an opportunity to present evidence in court before being sentenced. The judge who presided over Buder's case had made up his mind about sentencing prior to hearing any arguments or seeing any evidence from either side. This, according to Justice McReynolds, violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness enshrined in American jurisprudence. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on technicalities rather than addressing this substantial issue at hand - whether or not due process rights were violated when a judge pre-determines sentence without giving defendant an opportunity for defense.