In the case of Billy Joe Magwood v. Tony Patterson, Warden, et al., 2009, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Magwood. The court held that when a new judgment imposing a death sentence is issued after re-sentencing proceedings, it constitutes a new ruling and therefore can be challenged with another habeas petition even if the claim could have been brought earlier. This decision was based on an interpretation of federal law which limits prisoners to one federal habeas corpus challenge unless they meet stringent requirements for filing successive petitions. In this case, Magwood had previously filed and won a habeas petition challenging his initial death sentence for murder but was again sentenced to death at re-sentencing. He then filed another habeas petition challenging his second sentencing as being unlawful under Alabama state law because he should not have been eligible for capital punishment due to circumstances surrounding his crime.

In the dissenting opinion for Billy Joe Magwood v. Tony Patterson, Warden et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and federal law. He contended that a habeas petition is second or successive if it raises claims that could have been presented in an earlier petition, regardless of whether they are based on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. In this case, Magwood had already filed a successful habeas petition challenging his death sentence; therefore, any subsequent petitions should be considered "second or successive." According to Scalia’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C §2244(b), such petitions are subject to strict limitations and can only proceed under exceptional circumstances which were not present here. Thus he disagreed with the majority's view that each new judgment triggers its own set of opportunities for filing habeas corpus applications.