In the case of Herrear v. Heinze, Warden (1963), the petitioner, Herrear, was convicted in a Montana state court for issuing fraudulent checks and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that since there was no federal question presented in this case and it did not involve any constitutional issues or violations of federal law, they lacked jurisdiction to review it. Therefore, they dismissed the writ as improvidently granted.

In the dissenting opinion for Herrear v. Heinze, Warden, 1963 case, it was argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand violated established principles of federalism by allowing a state prisoner to challenge his conviction in federal court before exhausting all available remedies at the state level. The dissent emphasized that this approach undermines respect for state courts and disrupts their ability to enforce their own criminal laws. It also noted concerns about potential abuse of habeas corpus petitions by prisoners seeking multiple reviews of their convictions in different forums. Furthermore, it pointed out that there were no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons justifying such an intervention by a federal court into a matter primarily within the jurisdiction of state courts.