The U.S. Supreme Court case Buck v. Davis (2016) centered on the issue of ineffective counsel and racial bias in sentencing during a death penalty case. Duane Buck, an African American man convicted for murder, was sentenced to death after his own defense attorney introduced racially biased testimony suggesting that black men are more dangerous than white men. The psychologist who provided this testimony later recanted it as inappropriate and scientifically unsound but the Texas courts refused to reopen Buck's case despite acknowledging its error in similar cases involving the same psychologist's testimony. The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Buck, stating that he had demonstrated both deficient performance by his counsel and prejudice from that performance sufficient to meet requirements for ineffective assistance under Strickland v Washington (1984). This decision allowed him another chance at resentencing without racial bias influencing the outcome.

In the dissenting opinion for Buck v. Davis, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, argued that the majority had overstepped its authority by intervening in a case where lower courts had already made their decision. They contended that Buck's claim did not meet the high bar set for cases to be heard again after they have been decided upon and his ineffective counsel argument was invalid as it was based on statements made during cross-examination rather than direct examination. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's assertion of racial bias in sentencing because there were other significant factors contributing to Buck’s death sentence including his violent history and lack of remorse shown at trial. Furthermore, they criticized how this ruling could potentially open up floodgates for similar claims from other prisoners who believe their trials were influenced by race-related testimony.