The Wilwording v. Swenson case in 1971 involved a group of prisoners who filed a civil rights complaint against the prison warden, alleging that their constitutional rights were being violated due to poor living conditions and physical abuse by guards. The district court dismissed the complaint on grounds that habeas corpus was the appropriate remedy for challenging confinement conditions. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the inmates stating that they had every right to file a civil rights action under Section 1983 as it provides broader protection than habeas corpus relief which is typically used for unlawful detention or imprisonment cases only. Thus, this landmark decision established that prisoners could use civil rights legislation to challenge not just legality but also conditions of their confinement.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilwording et al. v. Swenson, Warden, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to allow prisoners to file civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C §1983 while they still had unexhausted state remedies available. He argued that this would undermine the principles of federalism and comity by allowing federal courts to intervene prematurely in state matters. Furthermore, he believed it could potentially overload federal courts with prisoner complaints which should be handled at a state level first. Justice Harlan also expressed concern about how this ruling might affect prison administration and discipline as it could encourage inmates to bypass internal grievance procedures in favor of filing lawsuits.