In the 1959 case of Grisham v. Hagan, Warden, the United States Supreme Court dealt with issues related to habeas corpus and due process rights. The petitioner, Grisham, was a prisoner in Alabama who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial for robbery because he was not given an opportunity to consult with counsel before being tried and convicted. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court after exhausting all state remedies available to him. However, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition without hearing any evidence on its merits based on their interpretation that there had been no violation of constitutional right as alleged by Grisham. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that it is necessary for courts to hear such cases fully before making judgments about whether or not constitutional violations have occurred. They emphasized that every individual has a fundamental right under U.S Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause which guarantees fair treatment through normal judicial system especially in matters involving life or liberty deprivation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Grisham v. Hagan, Warden argued that the majority's decision to overturn Grisham's conviction was not justified by the evidence presented. The dissenters believed that there were no constitutional violations in how Grisham's trial had been conducted and thus saw no reason for federal courts to intervene in a state criminal proceeding. They also took issue with what they perceived as an overreach on part of their colleagues, arguing that it wasn't within Supreme Court’s purview to reevaluate facts or credibility determinations made by juries and lower court judges unless there is clear proof of arbitrariness or discrimination which was absent here. Therefore, they felt this intervention undermined states' rights and disrupted balance between federal-state jurisdictions established under our system of dual sovereignty.