In the case of Glasgow v. Moyer, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia in 1911, petitioner William Glasgow was convicted for sending obscene materials through mail and sentenced to two years imprisonment. He filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his conviction violated his Fifth Amendment rights as he was not indicted by a grand jury but rather an information presented by U.S Attorney. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that under federal law, prosecutions for misdemeanors could be initiated either by indictment or information and it did not violate any constitutional right. Furthermore, they clarified that Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause does not apply to cases prosecuted in state courts even if they involve federal questions.

In the dissenting opinion of Glasgow v. Moyer, it was argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of fair trial and impartial jury. The dissenting justices believed that there was an abuse of discretion by the lower courts in denying Glasgow’s petition for habeas corpus without conducting a proper hearing or providing him with adequate legal representation. They contended that this denial infringed upon his right to due process under law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential bias within the jury selection process which may have influenced their decision against Glasgow unfairly. This case raised important questions about fundamental principles of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings, particularly regarding access to effective legal counsel and unbiased juries.