In the case of Walton v. House of Representatives of the State of Oklahoma et al., 1923, J.J. Walton, Governor of Oklahoma, challenged his impeachment by the state's House and Senate on grounds that they had violated procedural requirements outlined in the state constitution. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter as it was a political question rather than a judicial one. The court held that issues related to impeachments were non-justiciable because they involved intra-state disputes about constitutional interpretation which are best resolved within states themselves without federal interference unless there is clear violation or infringement upon federally protected rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Walton v. House of Representatives of the State of Oklahoma, Justice Holmes argued that it was not within the jurisdiction or power of federal courts to interfere with state legislative processes. He believed that such interference would violate principles of federalism and separation of powers, as well as infringe upon states' rights to govern their own internal affairs without undue influence from external entities. Furthermore, he contended that any disputes arising from these processes should be resolved by political means rather than judicial intervention. This view reflects a strict interpretation and application of constitutional law which emphasizes respect for institutional boundaries and autonomy in governance matters.