The U.S. Supreme Court case Clemons v. Mississippi in 1989 revolved around the issue of whether a death sentence could be upheld if one or more of the aggravating factors considered by the jury was later found to be invalid, and if so, under what circumstances this could occur. The court ruled that such a sentence can indeed be upheld as long as it is reevaluated considering only valid aggravating factors. In this specific case, Willie James Clemons had been sentenced to death for murder based on three separate aggravating factors; however, one was subsequently deemed unconstitutional by state courts while another was invalidated due to insufficient evidence during appeal proceedings at federal level. Despite these developments, his death penalty remained intact after being reviewed again without consideration of those two flawed aspects - an action which led him to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Clemons v. Mississippi, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to allow appellate courts to reweigh aggravating and mitigating factors in death penalty cases was a significant departure from precedent. He believed this change would lead to arbitrary and capricious sentencing, undermining the fairness of capital punishment trials. Furthermore, he contended that it is impossible for an appellate court to accurately gauge whether a jury would have imposed the death sentence without certain improper factors being considered. Justice Marshall also expressed concern about potential bias if state supreme courts were allowed to independently weigh evidence in favor of or against execution; he feared they might be inclined towards upholding death sentences due their political nature as elected officials in many states.