In the 1943 case Ex Parte Hawk, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal prisoner has the right to apply for habeas corpus relief in a district court. The petitioner, Robert E. Hawk, was serving time in Alcatraz after being convicted of bank robbery and had previously applied unsuccessfully for habeas corpus relief at both his trial court and appellate court. He then filed an application with a California District Court which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds as he had not exhausted all other legal remedies available to him first. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that there is no requirement for prisoners seeking such relief to exhaust all other avenues before applying directly to a district court under section 452 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., thereby overruling previous decisions made by lower courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Hawk, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases where state prisoners had not exhausted all their state remedies violated principles of federalism. The dissenters believed that this ruling undermined states' rights and interfered with their ability to administer justice within their own borders. They also expressed concern about the potential for abuse if federal courts were allowed to intervene prematurely in state criminal proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and precedents, arguing instead that these sources supported a more limited role for federal courts in reviewing state convictions.