In the 1902 case of In re Key, a man named William Key was convicted in an Alabama state court for murder and sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court on grounds that he had been denied due process because African Americans were excluded from both grand and petit juries in his trial. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over cases originating from state courts unless there was a final judgment or decree by the highest court of a State where such decision could be made. Since Key's case did not meet this requirement, as it hadn't been reviewed by Alabama's highest court yet, the U.S Supreme Court ruled they couldn't intervene at this stage.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Key, 1902, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus to William H. Key. He argued that it was unconstitutional for a state court to sentence someone without giving them an opportunity for defense or trial by jury, as had happened in this case when Key was sentenced by a Texas court while he was absent from the state. Harlan believed that such actions violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he contended that federal courts should have jurisdiction over cases where constitutional rights were allegedly infringed upon by state action. Therefore, according to Justice Harlan's dissenting view, Mr.Key should have been granted his petition for habeas corpus because his constitutional rights were violated under these circumstances.