In the United States Ex Rel. Jones v. County Court of Macon County case in 1891, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving voting rights and racial discrimination in Alabama. The plaintiff, Mr. Jones, alleged that he was denied his right to vote based on his race and color by officials from Macon County who refused to register him as a voter despite meeting all legal requirements for registration under state law at that time. He sought relief through a writ of mandamus directing these officials to perform their duty and register him as a voter. The court held that while it had jurisdiction over such cases where federal rights were violated by state action under the Fourteenth Amendment, it could not issue mandamus against county officers because they are not considered "persons" within the meaning of section 1979 (now §1983) which provides remedies for deprivation of civil rights under color of any State law or custom. Therefore, although acknowledging violation occurred against Mr.Jones' constitutional right to vote without regard being given to race or color; due process clause did not provide an avenue for redress via this particular method - issuing mandamus orders directly upon county officers.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. Jones v. County Court of Macon County argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach by federal courts into state matters. The dissenters believed that it was not within their jurisdiction to interfere with a state court’s judgment, especially when there were no constitutional violations involved. They contended that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent for future cases where federal courts could potentially override decisions made by state courts without proper justification or authority under existing laws and regulations, thus undermining states' rights and autonomy in legal affairs.