In the case of Wade v. Wilson, Warden, et al., 1969, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed due to his failure to exhaust all available remedies in state court. The petitioner had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in California but claimed that he had not received effective assistance from his counsel during trial or on appeal. He filed for habeas corpus relief in federal court before exhausting all possible appeals at the state level. The District Court dismissed his petition without prejudice because it believed that he still had potential remedies available within the California judicial system. The Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case back down for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. It held that under certain circumstances where there is no opportunity for adequate relief at a state level or if pursuing such an avenue would be futile, then exhaustion of these remedies isn't necessary before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.

In the dissenting opinion for Wade v. Wilson, Warden et al., 1969, Justice Harlan argued that federal courts should not interfere with state court decisions unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights. He believed that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was an overreach of their authority and undermined the principles of federalism by intruding on states' rights to administer their own criminal justice systems. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence suggesting any prejudice against Wade in his trial or sentencing process due to his previous escape attempt from jail while awaiting trial. Therefore, according to Justice Harlan, it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene in this case as it did not meet the standard required for such intervention under existing law.