In the case of Moore et al. v. Dempsey, Keeper of the Arkansas State Penitentiary in 1922, six African American men were convicted for murder and sentenced to death by an all-white jury in Arkansas following a race riot. The defendants claimed that their Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated due to mob-dominated trials without any real legal representation or fair hearing. They filed habeas corpus petitions at federal courts after state courts dismissed their claims. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners (Moore et al.), stating that if a trial has been influenced by mob domination such as this one was alleged to have been, then it is not constitutionally valid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark decision established that federal courts could intervene in state criminal cases where defendants' constitutional rights had been violated during court proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore et al. v. Dempsey, Justice McKenna expressed concern that the majority's decision undermined state sovereignty and encroached upon states' rights to administer their own justice systems without federal interference. He argued that there was no evidence of a constitutional violation in this case because it had been handled by Arkansas courts according to established legal procedures, including an appeal process which resulted in upheld convictions. Furthermore, he contended that any issues with mob influence should have been addressed during trial or on direct appeal rather than through habeas corpus proceedings at a federal level years after conviction. The dissent also emphasized respect for finality of judgments and warned against setting a precedent where every claim of unfairness could lead to endless litigation and undermine public confidence in judicial decisions.