In the 2006 case of Lonnie Lee Burton v. Belinda Stewart, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner's appeal was untimely and therefore could not be heard by the court. The petitioner, Lonnie Lee Burton, had been convicted in Washington state court and sought to challenge his conviction through federal habeas corpus proceedings. However, he did not file his petition within the one-year statute of limitations period set forth by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. He argued that this time limit should have been tolled because he was mentally impaired during part of it but failed to provide any evidence supporting this claim or showing cause for his delay in filing beyond "ordinary negligence". The Supreme Court held unanimously that under AEDPA’s statutory scheme as interpreted by its precedents there is no equitable tolling unless an inmate diligently pursues claims; mental impairment does not constitute per se “extraordinary circumstances” allowing federal courts to equitably toll AEDPA’s limitations period.

In the dissenting opinion for Lonnie Lee Burton v. Belinda Stewart, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center (2006), Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss Burton's habeas corpus petition on procedural grounds. He argued that a federal court has jurisdiction over such petitions regardless of whether they meet statutory requirements or not. According to him, dismissing it based on failure to comply with state procedural rules was an error as these are irrelevant in federal courts and should not be used as a basis for denying relief under 28 U.S.C §2254(b). Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s interpretation of “second or successive” applications under AEDPA (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) which he believed was too broad and could potentially bar legitimate claims from being heard in federal court.