In Palmer v. Ashe, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted of murder in Connecticut and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The petitioner, Palmer, claimed that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not given access to counsel during his trial. He filed for habeas corpus relief but it was denied by both the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that under federal law at that time (1951), there wasn't any requirement for states to provide defendants with legal representation in capital cases unless they could demonstrate special circumstances such as illiteracy or mental illness which would make it difficult for them to defend themselves adequately. Therefore, since Palmer did not show any special circumstance warranting provision of counsel by state authorities during his trial, his petition was dismissed. This decision reflected prevailing interpretations of Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel provisions before landmark rulings like Gideon v Wainwright (1963) expanded these protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Palmer v. Ashe, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of federalism and comity. He contended that it was not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review state court decisions on matters of state law unless there is an assertion that such interpretation infringes upon federally protected rights. In this case, he believed no such infringement occurred as Florida courts' interpretation of their own habitual offender statute did not violate any provision in the U.S Constitution or Federal Law. Furthermore, he emphasized that even if there were grounds for review under due process clause, Ashe had been given ample opportunity to challenge his sentence in Florida courts which satisfies requirements for procedural fairness and justice.