In the case of Tom L. Carey, Warden v. Tony Eugene Saffold (2001), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether a habeas corpus petition was filed within a reasonable time frame according to federal law. The respondent, Tony Eugene Saffold, had been convicted in California state court and sought post-conviction relief through state courts before filing for federal habeas corpus relief. However, there were significant gaps between his filings at different levels of the judicial system which raised questions about timeliness under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations for such petitions. The Supreme Court held that an application is pending during intervals between a lower court decision and filing for further review in a higher court if those intervals are "reasonable." In this context, it meant that Saffold’s petition could be considered timely even with gaps because he pursued his claims diligently both in state courts and later in federal proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Tom L. Carey, Warden v. Tony Eugene Saffold, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of California law regarding "reasonable time" to file an appeal after a state court decision. He argued that there was no clear evidence that California courts would consider 4 and a half months as a reasonable time period between decisions in different courts, which is what Saffold had taken to file his appeal. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on attorney declarations about general practices rather than concrete legal rules or precedents from California courts themselves. In essence, Scalia believed that this ruling expanded federal habeas corpus review beyond its intended scope by allowing more leniency for deadlines and thus potentially undermining finality in criminal cases.