In the case of Ryder v. Holt, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The case arose when a prisoner, Ryder, was convicted in a federal court and sentenced to life in prison. Ryder then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Ryder's release. The federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with a federal conviction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to prisoners who have exhausted all other remedies. Therefore, the Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Ryder.

In the case of Ryder v. Holt, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misread and misinterpreted the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He noted that while Title VII does prohibit discrimination based on race or color, it also prohibits discrimination based on national origin. In this case, Ryder was an American citizen who had been born in Mexico but raised in Texas; thus his national origin was Mexican-American. According to Scalia's interpretation of Title VII, this should have been sufficient for him to bring suit against Holt under its provisions since he could demonstrate both racial and ethnic discrimination by virtue of his dual heritage as a Mexican-American citizen. The majority disagreed with Scalia's interpretation and ruled against Ryder because they felt that there was not enough evidence to show any kind of discriminatory intent from Holt towards him due to his ethnicity or nationality alone rather than just race or color alone