In the case of In re Lancaster, 1890, the petitioner was a prisoner who had been convicted in a lower court and sentenced to death. He sought habeas corpus relief from the Supreme Court on grounds that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial. The main issue at hand was whether or not he had been denied due process because he wasn't given an opportunity to challenge jurors for bias before they were sworn in. However, after reviewing the circumstances surrounding his conviction and sentence, including transcripts of jury selection proceedings from his trial, it became clear that no such denial occurred. The Supreme Court found that there is no absolute right under federal law or Constitution to challenge jurors for cause before they are sworn in; rather this is typically governed by state laws which can vary widely across jurisdictions. Therefore, since there was no violation of any federally protected rights involved here - only potential violations of state procedural rules - federal courts lacked jurisdiction over this matter and could not grant him habeas corpus relief as requested.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Lancaster, 1890, it was argued that the petitioner should not be held in contempt of court. The dissenting justices believed that Lancaster had a constitutional right to refuse to answer questions before a grand jury if he felt his answers could incriminate him. They pointed out that this protection against self-incrimination is fundamental and cannot be waived unless done so knowingly and voluntarily. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes 'compelling' someone to testify against themselves; stating that being threatened with imprisonment for refusing to answer certainly qualifies as compulsion. Therefore, they concluded that holding Lancaster in contempt violated his Fifth Amendment rights.