In the 1914 case of Frank v. Mangum, Leo Frank, a factory superintendent in Georgia who was Jewish and from New York, appealed his conviction for the murder of Mary Phagan on grounds that he did not receive a fair trial due to public sentiment against him. He argued that mob intimidation influenced both the jury's verdict and his sentencing to death by hanging. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Frank, stating that while there may have been public hostility towards him during his trial proceedings, it wasn't sufficient enough to prove that it denied him due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that unless there is clear proof showing direct influence or interference with justice administration through violence or threat of violence from mobs upon courts' action or juries' decisions then no violation can be claimed under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Frank v. Mangum, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Charles Evans Hughes, argued that Leo Frank's trial was fundamentally unfair due to mob intimidation and public sentiment against him. They believed that this atmosphere of hostility prevented Frank from receiving a fair trial as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The justices contended that it was not enough for a court to be formally constituted if its proceedings were influenced by outside forces such as mobs or public sentiment. They maintained that when these influences are present, they undermine the fairness and impartiality of legal proceedings, thus violating constitutional rights to due process under law.