In the case of Georgia v. Rachel et al., 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot proceed with a criminal trial if the defendant has filed for removal to federal court on grounds of racial prejudice in violation of their civil rights. The defendants, African American citizens from Georgia who had been arrested and charged with trespassing after refusing to leave a racially segregated restaurant, invoked this right under Civil Rights Act provisions allowing such removals when it could be shown that they would not receive fair trials due to racial discrimination in state courts. The State argued against this claim but was overruled by both District and Appellate Courts before appealing to the Supreme Court which affirmed these decisions unanimously.

In the dissenting opinion for Georgia v. Rachel et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening in a state criminal proceeding before it was completed, violating principles of federalism and judicial restraint. He contended that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying such intervention, as required by Section 1443(1) of Title 28 U.S.C.A., which allows removal to a federal court only when defendants are denied or cannot enforce their equal civil rights in state courts. The petitioners' claim about racial prejudice did not meet this standard because they could have raised it on appeal after trial completion in the state court system. Furthermore, he believed that expanding Section 1443(1)'s scope would open floodgates for similar requests from defendants seeking to avoid trials in local courts due to perceived bias or unfairness, undermining states' authority and burdening federal courts unnecessarily.