In the case of Waskey v. Chambers, 1911, John W. Waskey sued James M. Shoup and Thomas R. Chambers for allegedly conspiring to remove him from his position as a U.S Marshal in Alaska so that Shoup could take over the role instead. The Supreme Court ruled against Waskey on two grounds: firstly, it was not illegal for individuals to conspire to have someone removed from public office; secondly, even if such an act were illegal under Alaskan law (which had yet to be determined), federal courts would not have jurisdiction over such a matter because it did not involve any violation of federal laws or rights protected by the Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Waskey v. Chambers, Justice Harlan argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case because it was essentially a dispute about property rights and not a federal question. He contended that the plaintiff's claim of being denied equal protection under Alaska law was unfounded as there were no allegations or proof of any discriminatory legislation in Alaska. Furthermore, he asserted that even if such discrimination existed, it would be an issue to be addressed by Congress rather than the courts. The justice also disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “case” and “controversy,” stating they had expanded its meaning beyond what is constitutionally intended to include hypothetical questions or abstract propositions which are outside their purview.