In the case of Kenneth Eugene Bousley v. United States, 1997, Bousley was convicted for using firearms in relation to drug trafficking crimes and money laundering. He did not appeal his conviction but later filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that he is "actually innocent" of violating the firearm statute because his plea was unknowing and involuntary due to incorrect advice from counsel regarding the elements of this offense. The District Court denied relief and the Eighth Circuit affirmed this decision stating that claims not raised on direct appeal could not be raised collaterally unless petitioner could show cause and prejudice. The Supreme Court held that even though Bousley failed to challenge his guilty plea on direct review, he may still have it reviewed if he can demonstrate 'actual innocence'. However, in order to claim actual innocence, one must support allegations with new reliable evidence which wasn't presented at trial. In addition, such a claim requires proof beyond reasonable doubt which wasn't met by Bousley's mere assertion of legal error or lack thereof during pleading stage. Therefore while opening up possibility for collateral attack on pleas under certain conditions; it upheld denial of relief as applied here.

In the dissenting opinion for Kenneth Eugene Bousley v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow a habeas corpus petition based on an argument not raised at trial or on direct appeal undermines finality in criminal cases and contradicts precedent. He contended that allowing such petitions encourages defendants to withhold arguments until post-conviction proceedings, which is inefficient and unfair to victims who deserve closure. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view of “actual innocence” as it pertains to legal errors rather than factual ones; this interpretation could potentially open floodgates for appeals from convicts claiming they are "actually innocent" of their crimes due to some legal error during their trials. Therefore, according to Scalia's dissenting opinion, Bousley should not have been allowed his habeas corpus claim because he failed initially both at trial level and appellate court level.