In the Ex Parte Harding case of 1910, the petitioner, Mr. Harding was convicted for contempt of court by a lower court and sentenced to jail. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court on grounds that he had not been given an opportunity to defend himself or present witnesses in his favor during trial proceedings at the lower court. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it did not have jurisdiction over such matters as they were within purview of state courts and could only be reviewed if there was a violation of federal law or constitution involved which wasn't evident in this case. Therefore, Mr. Harding's petition for habeas corpus relief from imprisonment was denied by the Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Harding, it was argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that the case should have been handled by a lower court before being brought to the Supreme Court. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing that due process does not necessarily require an individual to be physically present in order for their rights to be violated. Furthermore, they contended that even if there were procedural errors in how Harding's conviction was obtained, these did not automatically warrant his release from prison; rather, he should have sought relief through other legal avenues such as filing a habeas corpus petition or seeking a new trial. Finally, they expressed concern about potential misuse of ex parte proceedings and cautioned against setting precedents which could undermine judicial integrity and public trust in legal system.