In the case of Wade v. Mayo, State Prison Custodian (1947), the United States Supreme Court addressed a petition for habeas corpus by an inmate who claimed his constitutional rights were violated during his trial in Florida state court. The petitioner, Wade, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death without being provided with counsel or informed about his right to have one. He argued that this constituted a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that he had not exhausted all available remedies at the state level before seeking federal relief as required by law at that time. Therefore, it did not address whether there was indeed a constitutional violation in this case but instead dismissed it based on procedural grounds.

In the dissenting opinion for Wade v. Mayo, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and an unwarranted intrusion into state court matters. He contended that there were no federal constitutional issues involved in this case as it pertained to Florida law on insanity pleas and jury instructions. The defendant had been given a fair trial under Florida law, with ample opportunity to present his defense of insanity. Moreover, he pointed out that the Supreme Court should not act as a super appellate court reviewing state decisions simply because they disagree with them or find them harsh or unjust. This would undermine states' rights and disrupt our federal system where states have their own sovereign judicial systems separate from the federal judiciary.