In the 1967 case of Henry v. Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state court's decision could be reviewed by federal courts if it involved constitutional issues. The case revolved around Edward Henry who was convicted for armed robbery in a Louisiana state court and sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he had been denied due process because he was not allowed to cross-examine one of the prosecution's key witnesses against him - an accomplice in the crime who had since died. His appeal was rejected by both the Louisiana Supreme Court and U.S District Court citing lack of jurisdiction over state criminal proceedings under Section 2254, Title 28 U.S.C., which allows federal review only when a person is held "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court." However, upon reaching US Supreme Court, it reversed these decisions stating that even though Mr.Henry’s sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment after his first petition for habeas corpus relief at district level; this did not make his claim moot as he remained 'in custody' within meaning of §2254.

In the dissenting opinion for Henry v. Louisiana, 1967, it was argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to state court was inappropriate. The dissenting justices believed that there were no valid grounds for such a reversal as they saw no constitutional violation in how evidence had been obtained by police officers during their investigation of Henry’s alleged crime. They contended that since there was no federal question involved in this case, it should not have come before the Supreme Court at all. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications of this ruling on future cases involving similar circumstances - particularly those where law enforcement officials might be deterred from performing their duties effectively due to fear of violating suspects' rights under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.