In the case of Faulkner v. Gibbs, 1949, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two parties from different states when one party is an executor or administrator of an estate. The plaintiff in this case was a citizen and resident of Alabama who served as the administrator for his deceased wife's estate while defendant was a citizen and resident of Mississippi. The plaintiff brought suit against defendant in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction - which allows cases between citizens from different states to be heard in federal courts - seeking recovery for damages caused by alleged negligence resulting in his wife’s death. The lower courts dismissed the claim arguing that under Section 1332(c)(1) of Title 28 U.S.C., executors and administrators are deemed citizens only where they reside rather than where decedent resided at time of death; hence there wasn't complete diversity required for subject matter jurisdiction. However, upon appeal, it reached US Supreme Court which reversed this decision stating that citizenship should not be determined solely by residency but also considering other factors such as domicile (permanent home). Therefore, since both parties were indeed residents/citizens from different states (Alabama & Mississippi), there existed complete diversity giving Federal Courts authority to hear their dispute.

In the dissenting opinion for Faulkner v. Gibbs, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying habeas corpus relief to an African American man convicted of murder in Georgia was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were serious questions about whether the defendant had received a fair trial due to racial bias and other issues related to his legal representation. They felt that these concerns warranted further examination by federal courts, rather than deferring entirely to state court judgments as the majority did. In their view, this case represented an abdication of the Supreme Court’s responsibility under federal law and Constitution to ensure equal protection and due process rights for all citizens regardless of race or class status.