In the 1996 case of California et al. v. Kenneth Duane Roy, the U.S Supreme Court addressed whether a state could require an individual to pay child support for a child that was not biologically his but who he had treated as his own during marriage. The court ruled in favor of California, upholding the state's ability to enforce such requirements under its family law statutes. This decision was based on principles of equity and fairness, recognizing that children should be protected from financial instability following divorce or separation regardless of their biological ties to parents. It also acknowledged that individuals who assume parental roles during marriage have certain responsibilities towards those children even after marital dissolution.

In the dissenting opinion for California et al. v. Kenneth Duane Roy, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring parolees to consent to warrantless searches as a condition of their release was an overreach and violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that such blanket conditions were not narrowly tailored enough to be considered reasonable under the Constitution, even given the state's interest in supervising released prisoners effectively. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of this policy by law enforcement officers who might use it as an excuse for arbitrary or discriminatory searches without any suspicion of wrongdoing on part of parolees.