In Fisher v. Hurst, 1947, the US Supreme Court dealt with a case involving the interpretation of federal habeas corpus law. The petitioner, Fisher, was convicted for murder in Oklahoma and sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he had been denied due process because he was not provided counsel during his preliminary hearing - a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights according to him. However, both the state court and federal district court rejected this claim as they found no constitutional right to counsel at such an early stage in proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions stating that while it is true that under certain circumstances denial of counsel can constitute a lack of fair trial violating due process clause; however those circumstances did not exist here since there was no prejudice shown from absence of counsel at preliminary hearing which merely determined whether enough evidence existed for trial or not.

The dissenting opinion in Fisher v. Hurst, 1947, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. The dissent took issue with the court's interpretation of "due process," arguing that it had been overly broadened to include rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. This expansion of due process, according to the dissenters, threatened to undermine state sovereignty by allowing federal courts too much power over local matters. They also disagreed with how evidence was handled during trial proceedings and believed that certain pieces should have been excluded based on their potentially prejudicial nature or lack of relevance. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential violations of defendants' rights under this new interpretation and warned against setting dangerous precedents for future cases.