In the 1966 case of McGill et al. v. Ryals, Sheriff, et al., the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving civil rights and racial discrimination in Alabama. The plaintiffs were African American citizens who had been denied service at a restaurant due to their race, which they argued was in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited such discrimination. They sought an injunction against local law enforcement officials who threatened them with arrest for trespassing if they returned to the restaurant after being refused service there based on their race. The District Court dismissed their complaint without issuing any injunctive relief or holding an evidentiary hearing. The U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded it back to lower court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion because it found that dismissal was inappropriate under these circumstances where substantial federal questions were raised by allegations concerning state action supporting racial segregation contrary to federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McGill et al. v. Ryals, Sheriff, et al., argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the appeal was incorrect and premature. The dissenters believed that there were significant constitutional questions at stake regarding due process and equal protection under law which deserved a full hearing before the Court. They contended that by dismissing this case without fully considering these issues, they were denying appellants their right to have their claims heard and adjudicated fairly by America’s highest court of justice.