In the 1906 case of Ex Parte Wisner, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Mrs. Wisner, claimed that she was entitled to certain lands under her late husband's will and sought an injunction against parties who were allegedly trespassing on this property. However, these defendants argued they had rightful claim to the land based on a previous judgment by another court which ruled in their favor due to Mrs. Wisner’s failure to appear or defend her rights at that time. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter because it involved issues already decided by state courts and there was no federal question presented for review. Furthermore, even if there had been a valid federal issue raised (such as whether Mrs. Wisner’s constitutional rights were violated), such claims should be brought before lower federal courts first rather than directly appealing to the Supreme Court. This decision reinforced principles of judicial hierarchy and respect for prior judgments while also emphasizing limitations on its own power - specifically noting that it cannot intervene simply because one party is dissatisfied with outcomes from state proceedings unless those decisions contravene federal law or Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Wisner (1906), Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the petitioner, who was convicted by a military court in Manila during peacetime, should have been tried in a civil court instead. According to him, this case raised serious constitutional questions about whether U.S citizens could be subjected to martial law and deprived of their right to trial by jury when civilian courts were functioning. He also pointed out that even if it was necessary for military law to apply during wartime or rebellion, such conditions did not exist at the time of Wisner's conviction. Therefore, he believed that denying Wisner his rights under these circumstances violated principles fundamental to American jurisprudence and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving U.S citizens abroad.