In the United States Ex Rel. Touhy v. Ragen case, John Francis Touhy was convicted for kidnapping and sentenced to 99 years in prison by an Illinois court. He filed a habeas corpus petition claiming that his constitutional rights were violated because he wasn't allowed access to certain federal records during his trial which could have potentially proved his innocence or at least mitigated the sentence. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that it is within the discretion of a department head whether or not to release documents under their control when subpoenaed by a court (known as "Touhy Regulations"). The Court held that refusal of such requests does not violate any constitutional rights since these regulations are authorized by Congress and do not infringe upon judicial power. This decision upheld executive privilege over information while also maintaining separation of powers between branches of government - reinforcing administrative agencies' right to withhold internal documents from courts unless they decide otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision effectively allowed executive agencies to withhold evidence from courts and obstruct justice without any legal consequences or checks on their power. He contended that this was a dangerous precedent as it undermined the judiciary's ability to function independently and maintain its authority over other branches of government in matters of law enforcement and interpretation. Furthermore, he believed that such an unchecked power could be easily abused by executive agencies to protect themselves from scrutiny or liability, thereby undermining public trust in government institutions and threatening democratic principles of transparency and accountability.