In the 1910 case of Ex Parte in the Matter of the State of Oklahoma, Charles N. Haskell, then Governor of Oklahoma, petitioned to challenge a federal grand jury indictment against him for alleged fraud during statehood proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over this matter as it was not an issue involving habeas corpus or bail applications and thus could not be considered under "original jurisdiction". Instead, they stated such matters should first go through lower courts before reaching them on appeal if necessary. This decision reinforced principles regarding separation of powers and judicial hierarchy within U.S legal system.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte In The Matter Of The State Of Oklahoma, By Charles N. Haskell, Governor, Etc., Petitioner (1910) argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. It was contended that the issue at hand was a political question and therefore outside of judicial purview. Furthermore, it was asserted that even if there were grounds for legal intervention by federal courts into state matters under certain circumstances such as preventing anarchy or preserving public peace; those conditions were not present in this case. Thus, according to the dissenters' view, any interference from federal judiciary would be unwarranted and unconstitutional overreach into states’ rights territory.