In Young v. Ragen, the petitioner, Young, was convicted of murder in an Illinois state court and sentenced to 99 years imprisonment. He sought habeas corpus relief from federal courts claiming that his constitutional rights were violated because he was denied a fair trial due to prejudicial statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The District Court dismissed his petition without issuing a writ or holding a hearing on it. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that dismissal of Young's petition for habeas corpus by lower federal courts was improper as they failed to consider whether there had been an adequate fact-finding procedure in state court regarding his allegations of constitutional violations before dismissing his application for lack of merit. The Supreme Court ruled that if factual issues are involved in deciding whether a prisoner is entitled to release on habeas corpus grounds, those facts must be tried unless State court triers have already given full and fair hearings upon them. Therefore, this case established important precedent about how federal courts should handle petitions for writs of habeas corpus when prisoners allege their convictions violate constitutionally protected rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Young v. Ragen, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss Young's petition without a hearing. He argued that it was essential to have a full and fair examination of all relevant facts before making any judgment on such serious matters as constitutional rights violations. According to him, dismissing the case without proper inquiry would undermine public confidence in the justice system and could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, he pointed out that even if there were procedural irregularities in how Young filed his petition, these should not be used as an excuse to deny him his day in court - especially considering that he was acting pro se (representing himself) at the time.