In the Connecticut v. Doehr case of 1990, John DiGiovanni filed a lawsuit against Brian K. Doehr for assault and requested attachment of Doehr's real property to secure potential damages without notice or hearing. The state court granted this request based on an ex parte procedure under Connecticut law which allowed prejudgment attachments without giving prior notice or opportunity for a hearing to the defendant, and with no requirement that plaintiff post bond. However, when appealed by Doeher in federal district court claiming violation of his due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment, it was ruled that such action did indeed violate constitutional protections as there was no immediate danger that Doeher would dispose off his property before judgment could be rendered in the suit; thus making prejudgment attachment unnecessary and unfair. This decision was upheld by both Court of Appeals and Supreme Court stating that procedural due process requires adequate notice and opportunity for a hearing before depriving someone of their property.

In the dissenting opinion for Connecticut and John F. DiGiovanni v. Brian K. Doehr, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with historical practices and common law principles regarding prejudgment remedies. He contended that there is a long-standing tradition of allowing attachment without prior notice or hearing in certain circumstances, such as when there is a risk of property being concealed or disposed of before judgment can be rendered. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that these should not necessarily require an opportunity to be heard before seizure occurs in all cases. Instead, he suggested that due process might sometimes only necessitate post-seizure hearings or other procedural safeguards after attachment has taken place.