In the 1940 case of Holiday v. Johnston, Warden, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate in Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary. The petitioner claimed that he was being held unlawfully because his sentence had been improperly calculated and thus exceeded its lawful term. He also alleged that prison officials were denying him access to legal materials necessary for preparing his defense against disciplinary charges within the prison system. The Supreme Court dismissed these claims without hearing oral arguments or issuing a full opinion, stating only that they lacked merit under existing law and precedent. Specifically regarding the claim about access to legal materials, it noted that prisoners do not have an absolute right to such resources but must show some specific need or justification for them - which Holiday failed to do. This decision is significant as it established important precedents concerning inmates' rights while incarcerated and their ability to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus petitions.

In the dissenting opinion for Holiday v. Johnston, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect and unjust. He believed that the petitioner had raised serious constitutional questions about his trial and conviction, which deserved careful consideration by federal courts. Specifically, he pointed out issues related to coerced confessions and inadequate legal representation during the trial process. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for dismissing these concerns without proper examination or explanation. In his view, this approach undermined fundamental principles of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.