In the case of In re Fassett, 1891, the petitioner was a lawyer who had been disbarred by a lower court for alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review decisions made by state courts concerning the admission or disbarment of attorneys. It stated that each state has its own rules and regulations regarding legal practice within its boundaries and these are not subject to federal control unless they infringe upon constitutional rights. Therefore, even if an attorney is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, this does not guarantee their right to practice in any particular state nor protect them from disciplinary action taken by that state's judiciary system. This decision reinforced states' rights over their internal affairs while also emphasizing professional accountability among lawyers.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Fassett, 1891, argued that the court's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent emphasized that the petitioner had been held in custody for an extended period without a trial or conviction, which they believed violated his constitutional rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal law regarding extradition and argued that it should not apply in this case because there were significant doubts about whether he had committed any crime at all. Furthermore, they contended that even if he did commit a crime as alleged by authorities from another state seeking his extradition, it would not be considered a felony under federal law and thus could not justify his detention without trial. Therefore, according to their perspective on due process rights and legal standards for criminal charges and punishment severity levels across different jurisdictions within U.S., granting him habeas corpus relief would have been more appropriate.