In the 1946 case Ex Parte Fahey, Federal Home Loan Bank Commissioner et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against an officer or agency of the United States unless it is shown that they have failed to perform a clear non-discretionary duty. The petitioner, Fahey, sought such a writ from lower courts in order to compel respondents (Federal Home Loan Bank officials) to approve his application for insurance on certain home loans under Section 603(b) of the National Housing Act. However, this section gives officials discretionary power over approval decisions and does not impose any specific duties upon them regarding individual applications. Therefore, since there was no failure by respondents in performing their statutory duties as claimed by petitioner, both lower courts correctly denied issuing the requested writs.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Fahey, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to grant a writ of certiorari was inappropriate. He contended that this case did not meet the criteria for such an extraordinary measure as it lacked any substantial federal question or conflict among lower courts. Furthermore, he believed that granting a writ in this situation would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging litigants to bypass regular appellate procedures and seek direct Supreme Court review instead. This could potentially flood the court with cases and undermine its ability to function effectively. Thus, he disagreed with his colleagues' decision to hear this case directly from district court without waiting for it to go through appeals process first.