In the 1983 case Autry v. Estelle, James David Autry, a death row inmate in Texas, appealed to the U.S Supreme Court for a stay of execution and petitioned for writ of habeas corpus. He argued that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated due to the "death row phenomenon," where long periods on death row under harsh conditions constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court denied both requests without comment or recorded dissent. This decision was significant as it set precedent regarding how courts view extended stays on death row: they do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment if delays are primarily result of an inmate's appeals or reviews.

In the dissenting opinion for Autry v. Estelle, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision violated Autry's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. They contended that Texas' death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it did not allow a jury to consider mitigating circumstances before deciding on a sentence of death. This lack of consideration could lead to arbitrary or capricious sentencing decisions which are inconsistent with the principles of justice and humanity embodied in the Constitution. The dissenters also criticized the majority for failing to address this issue adequately in their ruling.