In the case of In re Belt, Petitioner (1894), the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a lower court had erred in refusing to discharge an individual from imprisonment for contempt of court. The petitioner, Mr. Belt, was held in contempt after he failed to comply with a decree ordering him to pay money into the court that he allegedly received as trustee under fraudulent circumstances. He claimed inability to pay due to loss of assets and income but provided no evidence or detailed explanation supporting his claim. The Supreme Court upheld the decision made by lower courts stating that it is upon Mr. Belt's burden of proof to provide clear evidence demonstrating his inability to comply with the order rather than just making bare assertions about his financial situation without any substantiation or details regarding how he lost all his property and income within such short period since receiving funds as trustee. Therefore, unless there is concrete proof showing impossibility in complying with orders issued by courts due their nature or changed circumstances rendering them impossible, individuals cannot be discharged from punishment for contempt merely based on their statements claiming inability without providing sufficient evidential support.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Belt, Petitioner (1894) argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant issues with how the petitioner's trial had been conducted, including potential violations of his constitutional rights. They contended that these concerns warranted a more thorough review by higher courts and should not have been dismissed so readily. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of federal jurisdiction over state court decisions in cases involving constitutional questions. According to them, this restrictive view undermined an essential safeguard for individual liberties against potential abuses at state level.