In the 1920 case Ex parte Riddle, petitioner Riddle was a federal prisoner who sought to challenge his detention by filing a habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court denied his request on the grounds that he had not exhausted all of his options in lower courts before appealing to them. Specifically, they noted that there were still pending proceedings in other courts which could potentially result in relief for him. Therefore, it would be premature and inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene at this stage. This decision reinforced the principle that higher courts should only become involved once all possibilities have been explored within lower jurisdictions.

The dissenting opinion in the Ex parte Riddle case argued that the petitioner, a federal prisoner, had not exhausted all available remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief. The justice believed that there were other legal avenues open to him which he should have pursued first. This included appealing his conviction or filing for post-conviction relief at the state level. The justice also pointed out that granting habeas corpus prematurely could undermine finality in criminal cases and overload federal courts with requests from prisoners who haven't fully explored their options within the state court system first. Therefore, while acknowledging Riddle's right to seek redress of grievances through habeas corpus, it was suggested he should do so only after exhausting all other possible remedies.