In the case of In re Rice, 1894, the petitioner was a prisoner who had been convicted for murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court was asked to review whether it had jurisdiction over his writ of habeas corpus appeal. The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction because the crime committed by Rice fell under state law rather than federal law. Therefore, any appeals should be made through state courts instead of federal ones. This decision reinforced the principle of dual sovereignty in U.S., where states retain certain powers independent from those held by the federal government.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Rice, 1894, argued that the petitioner should not be held in contempt for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury. The justice believed that the petitioner had a constitutional right to refuse self-incrimination and therefore could not be punished for exercising this right. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "compelling" testimony, arguing that it was too broad and infringed on individual rights. Furthermore, he contended that forcing someone to testify against themselves violated their Fifth Amendment rights. This view differed from those who felt such compulsion was necessary for effective law enforcement or judicial proceedings.