In the 2010 case of Harry F. Connick, District Attorney, et al., v. John Thompson, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Connick by a 5-4 majority vote. The case revolved around John Thompson who had been wrongfully convicted for murder and spent fourteen years on death row before evidence emerged that prosecutors from Connick's office had withheld exculpatory evidence during his trial - an action which violated Brady v. Maryland (1963). After being exonerated, Thompson sued Connick's office for failing to train its attorneys about their obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence and was awarded $14 million in damages by a jury verdict; however this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court ruling that held district attorney’s offices cannot be held liable under Section 1983 for failure to train their prosecutors unless it can be proven there is deliberate indifference towards violation of defendant’s rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Connick v. Thompson, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision ignored clear evidence of deliberate indifference on the part of the District Attorney's office to a known risk of constitutional violations. She pointed out that prosecutors are required by law to disclose exculpatory evidence and this duty is fundamental to ensuring fair trials. In this case, she believed there was ample proof showing that Connick’s office had failed in its obligation repeatedly over many years, resulting in numerous wrongful convictions including Thompson’s. The failure was systemic and not just an isolated incident attributable to rogue officers or bad apples within the department as suggested by the majority opinion. Therefore, according to her view, it would be appropriate for liability under Section 1983 which allows individuals who have been deprived their constitutional rights by state officials acting under color of law can sue those officials or their employers for damages.