The Ex Parte Poresky case in 1933 involved a petitioner, Samuel Poresky, who was convicted of criminal contempt by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts for violating an injunction that prohibited him from picketing. He argued that his conviction violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and sought habeas corpus relief. The U.S. Supreme Court denied this relief on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to review state court decisions via writs of habeas corpus unless it could be shown that the petitioner was held in custody in violation of federal law or constitutionally protected rights. The court found no evidence suggesting such violations had occurred; therefore, they concluded there were no grounds for granting a writ of habeas corpus.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Poresky, it was argued that the petitioner should have been granted a writ of habeas corpus. The dissenting justices believed that the lower court had erred in its interpretation and application of law regarding citizenship status. They contended that Mr. Poresky's rights as an American citizen were violated when he was ordered to be deported based on his alleged membership in a communist organization - something they felt wasn't adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view about whether or not advocating for overthrow of government constituted enough ground for deportation under existing laws at the time. In their view, mere advocacy did not equate to actual execution or planning thereof; hence it shouldn’t warrant such severe punishment as deportation especially without concrete evidence supporting such claims.