In the case of Francis v. Henderson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that a defendant's failure to raise a claim of constitutional violation at his first state collateral proceeding constituted a waiver of that claim in subsequent federal habeas corpus proceedings. The petitioner, Robert Wayne Francis, was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by Louisiana courts. He claimed he had been denied due process because African Americans were systematically excluded from grand juries in Calcasieu Parish where he was indicted but failed to raise this issue during his initial post-conviction relief application at state level. When he raised it later on federal habeas review, the court held that under principles of comity and federalism, states should have the first opportunity to correct their own constitutional errors before intervention by federal courts is warranted.

In the dissenting opinion for Francis v. Henderson, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart, argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court regarding habeas corpus petitions. They contended that a state prisoner should not be barred from federal habeas corpus relief when he has been unable to comply with a state procedural requirement due to an absence of counsel or other factors beyond his control. The dissenters believed this ruling would unfairly penalize prisoners who were unaware of their rights or lacked legal representation at critical stages in their cases. They also expressed concern about potential violations of constitutional rights if states could prevent federal courts from reviewing claims simply because they had not been raised in accordance with state procedures.