In the United States v. Madigan case of 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving federal jurisdiction over state court decisions. The defendant, Madigan, was convicted in an Illinois state court for violating a federal law that prohibited mail fraud. He appealed his conviction to the U.S Supreme Court arguing that he had been denied due process because certain evidence used against him was obtained illegally and should have been excluded from trial under federal rules of evidence. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review this decision as it involved interpretation and application of state laws rather than constitutional issues or questions about interpretation or application of federal law. The ruling emphasized respect for states' rights and autonomy within their own judicial systems by limiting when defendants can appeal state convictions to the U.S Supreme Court based on alleged violations of federally protected rights.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Madigan, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an indictment that did not specify which of several possible offenses was being charged violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness. He contended that it is essential in any criminal proceeding for an accused person to know precisely what charge they are facing so they can adequately prepare their defense. In this case, he believed the defendant had been denied this basic right because his indictment was vague and ambiguous about whether he was being charged with conspiracy or some other offense related to mail fraud. This lack of clarity, according to Justice McReynolds, rendered the entire trial process fundamentally unfair and should have resulted in a reversal of Madigan's conviction.