In re Baiz, Petitioner is a Supreme Court case from the year 2000. The case involved a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Mexican citizen, Jose Baiz, who was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) after he was found to be in the United States without proper documentation. Baiz argued that he was entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether he was eligible for relief from deportation. The Supreme Court held that the INS had violated Baiz's due process rights by failing to provide him with a hearing before an immigration judge. The Court also held that the INS had violated Baiz's right to counsel by failing to provide him with an attorney. The Court concluded that Baiz was entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge and that he should be provided with an attorney. The Court also held that the INS had violated Baiz's right to a fair hearing by failing to provide him with an interpreter. The Court ordered the INS to provide Baiz with a hearing before an immigration judge and to provide him with an attorney and an interpreter.

In the dissenting opinion of In re Baiz, Petitioner, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was wrong. He believed that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice and thus did not meet the standard for granting such relief. Furthermore, he noted that there were no extraordinary circumstances present in this case which would warrant overturning precedent or creating an exception from established law. Finally, Justice Scalia argued that it was inappropriate for courts to second-guess state court decisions on matters related to criminal procedure unless there is clear evidence of error or injustice. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that federal courts should be more deferential when reviewing state court rulings and should only intervene if absolutely necessary in order to protect constitutional rights.