In the 1942 case of Ex Parte Elmer Davis, the United States Supreme Court considered a petition for habeas corpus by Davis, who was convicted in California state court for first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The petitioner claimed that his constitutional rights were violated because he did not have counsel present during his preliminary hearing. However, the Supreme Court denied his petition on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over cases where final judgment has been rendered in any criminal prosecution before a court of the State. The decision emphasized that federal courts should not interfere with state judicial proceedings unless absolutely necessary to prevent irreparable injury or clear violation of constitutional rights. In this case, since Davis had legal representation at trial and all subsequent stages (including appeals), there was no substantial evidence showing deprivation of due process under Fourteenth Amendment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte Elmer Davis argued that the court should not have dismissed Davis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The dissenting justices believed that Davis had been denied his constitutional right to due process because he was not given an opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention before being deported. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of immigration law, arguing that it did not provide sufficient grounds for denying a hearing on habeas corpus. Furthermore, they contended that even if such grounds existed, they were irrelevant because Congress could not constitutionally authorize deportation without due process. Therefore, according to this view, dismissing Davis's petition violated both statutory and constitutional law.