In the case of In re Johnson, 1896, the petitioner was a lawyer who had been disbarred by the Supreme Court of Utah. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that his disbarment violated his rights under federal law and constitution. The court ruled against him stating that it did not have jurisdiction over such matters as they were strictly within state control unless there was clear violation of federal rights which wasn't evident in this case. This decision reinforced states' power to regulate professional conduct within their borders without interference from federal courts except in cases where constitutional or federal rights are clearly violated.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Johnson, 1896, the justice argued that a writ of habeas corpus should be granted to Mr. Johnson. The justice believed that the lower court had erred in its interpretation and application of law when it denied Mr. Johnson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on grounds that he was not entitled to one because his imprisonment was lawful under state law. The dissenting judge disagreed with this reasoning, arguing instead that federal courts have jurisdiction over such matters and can grant relief if they find detention is unlawful under federal law or constitution even if it is legal under state laws. He further contended that there were indeed violations of constitutional rights in this case which warranted intervention by a higher court.