In the case of In re Green in 1891, the United States Supreme Court examined whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued for a prisoner who was held under state authority. The petitioner, Mr. Green, had been convicted and sentenced to death by an Arkansas court for murder. He sought relief from his sentence through federal courts on grounds that he was denied due process rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment because African Americans were excluded from serving on juries at that time in Arkansas. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it did not have jurisdiction over cases where prisoners are held under state authority unless there is evidence showing violation of federal law or constitutional rights during their trial proceedings which wasn't proven here. They also clarified that while racial discrimination in jury selection may violate equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this argument cannot be used to challenge validity of state laws themselves but only their discriminatory application.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Green, 1891, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting interracial marriage in Alabama was fundamentally flawed. The dissenting justices believed that such laws violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that these clauses were designed to protect all citizens from discriminatory legislation based on race or color. Therefore, they asserted that any law which denied individuals their fundamental right to marry solely because of racial differences should be deemed unconstitutional. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that this case did not involve a federal question but rather an issue left up to individual states' discretion under their police powers; instead, they maintained it involved constitutional rights protected by federal law against state infringement.