In the case of Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin (2006), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated by spectators wearing buttons depicting the victim. The respondent, Mathew Musladin, had been convicted for murder in California state court and argued that his due process rights were violated because some members of the victim’s family wore buttons with an image of the deceased during his trial. He claimed this could have potentially influenced jury bias against him. However, on appeal to federal courts under habeas corpus review standards established by Congress in 1996's Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), it was determined that no clearly established Federal law as determined by SCOTUS existed which would suggest such conduct from spectators infringed upon a fair trial.

In the case of Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin, Justice Souter's dissenting opinion argued that the majority had applied an overly narrow interpretation of "clearly established Federal law" in denying habeas relief to Musladin. He contended that while there may not have been a Supreme Court precedent directly addressing the specific issue at hand - whether spectators wearing buttons with a picture of the victim could prejudice a defendant’s right to fair trial - broader principles from relevant precedents should be considered as part of clearly established federal law under AEDPA (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act). These principles include ensuring defendants are tried by impartial juries and preventing practices which might undermine this fairness. Therefore, he believed that these broad principles were violated in Musladin's case due to potential jury bias caused by spectator conduct.