In White v. Ragen, Warden (1944), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an inmate's right to petition for habeas corpus. The petitioner, White, was an Illinois state prisoner who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial and sentencing. He argued that he had been denied due process of law because the judge did not instruct the jury about reasonable doubt in relation to circumstantial evidence. However, both lower courts dismissed his claim without hearing it on its merits based on procedural grounds - they stated that since he didn't raise this issue at trial or appeal within Illinois courts first before seeking federal relief through habeas corpus proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions and remanded the case back to district court for further proceedings consistent with their opinion. They held that when a state provides corrective procedures but there is no fair opportunity to use them due to circumstances beyond control of accused person such as ignorance or illiteracy then federal courts can entertain application for writ of habeas corpus even if those remedies have not been exhausted.

In the dissenting opinion for White v. Ragen, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was inappropriate because it failed to respect the state court's interpretation of its own laws. He emphasized that federal courts should not intervene in state criminal proceedings unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights, which he did not believe occurred in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential implications of such intervention on states' rights and judicial federalism. In his view, granting habeas corpus relief under these circumstances could undermine states' authority over their own legal systems and disrupt the balance between state and federal power established by our Constitution.