In the 1903 case of Ex Parte Joins, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a habeas corpus petition from a prisoner who had been convicted in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) for introducing and selling liquor there. The petitioner argued that his conviction was invalid because it violated Article III of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantee trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions. He claimed that he did not receive an impartial jury trial as required by these provisions because some members of his jury were appointed rather than elected. The court rejected this argument, ruling that Congress has plenary power over territories like Indian Territory under Article IV of the Constitution. This means that Congress can establish courts in such territories without being bound by Article III or other constitutional restrictions on federal courts within states. Therefore, even though jurors in territorial courts might be selected differently than those in state or federal courts within states, this does not violate defendants' rights to an impartial jury trial under either Article III or the Sixth Amendment.

The dissenting opinion for the Ex Parte Joins case in 1903 is not readily available. The case involved a petitioner, William Joins, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had been denied due process because he was forced to wear shackles during his trial which could have influenced the jury's perception of him. However, it appears there were no recorded dissenting opinions from any justices in this particular case as per available legal documents and resources.