The U.S. Supreme Court case Coleman v. Tollefson (2014) revolved around the interpretation of a federal law that limits prisoners' ability to file lawsuits in federal court if they have had three or more previous cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted - known as the "three strikes" rule. Andre Lee Coleman, an inmate in Michigan's prison system, argued that his pending appeals should not count towards this limit until they were resolved and thus he should be allowed to proceed with another lawsuit without prepayment of filing fees. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled unanimously against him; Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion stating that a prior dismissal on grounds commonly referred to as “strike” counts regardless of whether it is being appealed.

In the dissenting opinion for Coleman v. Tollefson, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C §1915(g) was incorrect. He contended that a dismissal should not count as a "strike" until it has been affirmed on appeal or time to appeal has expired. This is because an erroneous district court decision could be corrected by an appellate court and thus shouldn't prevent prisoners from filing future lawsuits in forma pauperis (without payment). The majority’s interpretation, he believed, would discourage inmates from appealing dismissals due to fear of accruing strikes prematurely. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of judgments were treated under this ruling; some wouldn’t count as strikes until they were final while others would immediately upon issuance by a district court.