In the case of Ex Parte Tracy (1918), the petitioner, Tracy, was convicted for violating a federal law that prohibited sending lottery tickets through mail. He sought habeas corpus relief on grounds that his conviction violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court denied his petition stating that he had not exhausted all available remedies in lower courts before seeking relief from the Supreme Court. The court held that it would only intervene if there were exceptional circumstances where justice required immediate intervention or when lower courts failed to act within their jurisdiction. In this case, since Tracy's claims could have been addressed by an appellate court after final judgment in trial court, he was required to exhaust those options first before appealing to the Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Tracy, it was argued that the petitioner should not be held in contempt of court because he did not have sufficient notice of what constituted a violation. The justice contended that due process requires clear and definite warning as to what conduct will violate its orders. In this case, the order issued by the lower court was vague and ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation on whether or not Mr. Tracy's actions were indeed in violation of it. Furthermore, they believed that his punishment - imprisonment until compliance with an unclear order - was excessive and unjustified under these circumstances.