In the case of Arthur Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Troy Ashmus, ETC., 1997, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a procedural issue related to habeas corpus petitions filed by death row inmates in California. The respondent Troy Ashmus was convicted for murder and sentenced to death in California state court. He sought federal habeas relief before his state collateral review became final under a provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) that allows such pre-finality applications if they raise claims that have been exhausted but not procedurally defaulted in state court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held this provision unconstitutional as it violated equal protection principles by treating capital defendants differently from non-capital defendants without sufficient justification. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that there is no constitutional violation because capital and non-capital defendants are not similarly situated with respect to their ability or need to seek federal habeas relief before completing state collateral review procedures; hence different treatment does not violate equal protection principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Arthur Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Troy Ashmus, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case as improvidently granted. He argued that it was inappropriate to avoid deciding on a significant issue of law because of potential procedural complexities in this particular case. The question at hand was whether federal courts could indefinitely stay capital cases until state post-conviction proceedings were completed - an issue he believed needed resolution due to its implications for habeas corpus petitions and death penalty cases nationwide. Scalia also criticized his colleagues' reluctance to address controversial topics such as capital punishment and suggested that their avoidance undermined public confidence in judicial impartiality.