In the case of Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, Warden (1937), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ashe, upholding his right to deny a writ of habeas corpus to Sullivan. The petitioner, Sullivan was serving a sentence for murder in Pennsylvania and sought release on grounds that he had been denied due process because he was not given an opportunity to consult with counsel before being arraigned and pleading guilty. However, the court found no violation of constitutional rights as it held that there is no absolute right under federal law or constitution for one accused of crime to be represented by counsel unless there's potential capital punishment involved or other special circumstances which render such representation necessary for a fair trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, Justice Benjamin Cardozo argued that the court's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was a departure from established principles of federalism and comity between state and federal courts. He contended that it was not within the purview of federal courts to re-examine or correct errors in state court decisions unless there is an egregious violation of constitutional rights, which he did not believe occurred in this case. Moreover, he expressed concern about potential abuse if every prisoner who claimed his trial was unfair could seek review by a federal judge after exhausting all appeals at the state level. In essence, Justice Cardozo believed that granting such broad power to intervene would undermine respect for state judiciaries and disrupt their ability to enforce criminal laws effectively.