In the case of George Duncan, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker (2000), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a prisoner's right to due process was violated when he was placed in administrative segregation without a hearing. The petitioner, George Duncan argued that New York State law created an entitlement for prisoners not to be subjected to such confinement unless they were found guilty of serious misconduct at a disciplinary hearing. On the other hand, respondent Sherman Walker contended that his placement in administrative segregation did not constitute punishment but rather served as an administrative tool used by prison officials for managing difficult or dangerous inmates. Ultimately, the court ruled against Walker stating that no state-created liberty interest had been infringed upon and thus there was no violation of his due process rights.

In the dissenting opinion for George Duncan, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker (2000), Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to grant habeighas corpus relief to Walker based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. He argued that there was no clear evidence showing that the outcome would have been different had Walker's lawyer objected to certain testimony or pursued a different strategy. According to him, it is not enough for a defendant simply to show that their attorney made mistakes; they must also demonstrate how these errors directly led them being found guilty. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for applying an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes "prejudice" in cases involving claims of ineffective legal representation and warned this could set a dangerous precedent by encouraging defendants who are unhappy with their verdicts merely because they believe their lawyers could have done better.