In the case of California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jose Ramon Morales in 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an issue regarding parole eligibility for inmates serving life sentences with possibility of parole under California law. The dispute arose when a change in state regulations led to longer intervals between parole suitability hearings for such prisoners who had been denied release at their initial hearing and were deemed unlikely to be found suitable for parole within a year's time due to serious misconduct or other factors indicating unsuitability. Morales challenged this regulation as violating the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution which prohibits laws that increase punishment after a crime has been committed. The Supreme Court held that although changes in law affecting substantive crimes can violate ex post facto principles if they disadvantage defendants, not every alteration in penal methods necessarily does so; only those changes producing "a sufficient risk" of increasing punishment do so. In this case, it was determined that there was no significant risk posed by extending time between reviews because it applied only to prisoners who had already been denied parole and were unlikely to become eligible within one year anyway based on their conduct or other relevant considerations.

In the dissenting opinion for California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jose Ramon Morales, Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing indefinite incarceration without parole eligibility was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on cruel and unusual punishment. She contended that while states have broad discretion in determining appropriate punishments for crimes, they must still adhere to constitutional standards prohibiting excessive sentences. The justice believed that denying an inmate any possibility of parole could be considered excessively harsh under certain circumstances and should not be automatically upheld as constitutional simply because it is a state law. Furthermore, she expressed concern about potential abuses of such laws by prison officials or political actors seeking to appear tough on crime at the expense of individual rights.