The McNally v. Hill case in 1934 revolved around the issue of habeas corpus, a legal action that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. The petitioner, McNally, was serving two sentences consecutively and argued for his right to challenge the second sentence while still serving the first one. He claimed that he should have been released on parole after completing his first sentence and thus sought release through writ of habeas corpus. However, the U.S Supreme Court ruled against him stating that since he was not eligible for immediate release (because even if successful with respect to one conviction it would not affect his detention under another), he could not use habeas corpus as an instrument to question conditions of confinement or future custody issues.

In the dissenting opinion for McNally v. Hill, Justice Stone argued that a writ of habeas corpus should be granted to an individual serving consecutive sentences if they are challenging the legality of their second sentence. He believed that it was not necessary for the prisoner to wait until he began serving his second sentence before questioning its validity. The majority's decision, according to Justice Stone, effectively denied prisoners access to federal courts and thus violated their constitutional rights. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no legal or practical reasons why a prisoner could not challenge all his convictions at once rather than one by one in chronological order.