In the case of Hill, Warden v. United States ex rel. Weiner (1936), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Weiner, who was serving a sentence for mail fraud at Leavenworth Penitentiary and had filed a petition for habeas corpus challenging his detention. The court held that it was improper to deny him an opportunity to present evidence supporting his claim that he had been denied constitutional rights during his trial. Specifically, Weiner argued that he did not have effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to object when the prosecution introduced evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure - violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, stating that if such claims were true they would constitute grounds for relief under habeas corpus law.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill, Warden v. United States ex rel. Weiner, Justice Cardozo argued that the court should not have granted a writ of habeas corpus to Weiner because he had failed to exhaust all available remedies in state courts before seeking federal relief. He believed that this principle was essential for maintaining respect between federal and state courts and ensuring orderly administration of justice. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case which could justify bypassing the requirement to first seek redress at the state level. Therefore, according to Justice Cardozo's dissenting view, granting a writ of habeas corpus under these conditions undermined important principles governing relations between different levels of judiciary system.