In Frazier v. Heebe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that a rule requiring attorneys to live within the jurisdiction of the federal court where they practice was unconstitutional. The case arose when two lawyers who lived and practiced law in Mississippi but also maintained an office in Louisiana were denied admission to practice before a federal district court because they did not reside within its territorial jurisdiction or maintain their primary offices there as required by local rules. They challenged this requirement on grounds that it violated equal protection principles and was inconsistent with standards established by Congress for attorney admissions to federal courts. The Supreme Court agreed, finding no rational connection between lawyer competence and residence location or primary office location, thus striking down these requirements as arbitrary restrictions on right to practice law.

In the dissenting opinion for Frazier v. Heebe, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to strike down a local rule requiring lawyers practicing in federal court to reside within its jurisdiction was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that such rules should be left up to local authorities who are more familiar with their specific circumstances and needs. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where the Supreme Court could intervene in matters traditionally handled by lower courts or other branches of government. In his view, this case did not present any constitutional issues or violations of federal law warranting intervention from the highest court in the land.