In the 1985 case of AETNA Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a justice on Alabama's Supreme Court violated due process by participating in a decision against an insurance company while he had a similar lawsuit pending against another insurer. The plaintiff, Aetna Life Insurance Company, argued that Justice Embry’s participation in deciding Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama v. Nielsen resulted in bias and prejudice because his personal interest could be substantially affected by its outcome as it set precedent for his own case against Blue Cross-Blue Shield which was still pending at the time of judgment. The court held that this situation created an unacceptable risk of actual bias violating principles of natural justice and constitutional requirements under Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. LAVOIE et al., Justice Blackmun argued that there was no violation of due process in this case, as he believed that the Alabama Supreme Court's decision did not demonstrate bias or partiality against Aetna Life Insurance Co. He noted that while one of the justices had a pending lawsuit against an insurance company, it wasn't specifically with Aetna and therefore didn't constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, he pointed out that all seven justices unanimously agreed on their ruling which suggests impartiality rather than bias towards insurance companies in general. In his view, any potential indirect benefit to the justice from this ruling was too speculative to be considered a due process violation.