In the case of Ex Parte Charley Webb, 1911, petitioner Charley Webb sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his detention by U.S. authorities after being convicted in an Oklahoma court for introducing and selling liquor in Indian Territory. The Supreme Court denied his petition on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over cases originating from state courts unless there was a federal question involved. In this instance, although Webb argued that he had been tried under an invalid law as Oklahoma's admission into the Union superseded previous laws governing Indian Territory, the Court found no such federal issue present because Congress had explicitly extended those laws until they could be changed by state legislature or Congress itself. Therefore, since there was no violation of any treaty with Native American tribes nor any conflict between state and federal authority regarding criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians committing crimes within reservation boundaries at play here - both potential sources for a valid federal question - Mr.Webb’s conviction stood.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Charley Webb, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case. The dissenting justices believed that Webb's petition did not present a federal question and thus, his claim could be adequately addressed by state courts. They contended that there were no violations of constitutional rights or federal laws in this case to warrant intervention from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about setting a precedent where individuals could bypass state court systems and bring their cases directly to the Supreme Court without proper justification. This would undermine states' judicial autonomy and potentially overload the Supreme Court with cases better suited for lower courts.