In the case of Gary Albert Ewing v. California, 2002, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a sentence under California's three-strikes law for a man who stole golf clubs worth $1,197 from a pro shop. The defendant had previously been convicted of multiple felonies and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison due to his latest crime being considered as another 'strike'. Ewing challenged this sentence as violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because it was grossly disproportionate to his offense. However, the court ruled in favor of California by affirming that its three-strikes law served legitimate state interests in deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders. Therefore, even though Ewing's current felony conviction involved non-violent theft, considering his long history of criminal conduct including serious or violent offenses justified applying the three-strike rule.

In the dissenting opinion for Gary Albert Ewing v. California, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and Souter, argued that Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life under California's three-strikes law was grossly disproportionate to his crime of stealing golf clubs valued at $1,200 and thus violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The dissent pointed out that in previous cases involving petty offenses triggering a life sentence under recidivist statutes, the Court had found such sentences unconstitutional. They noted that while states have legitimate interests in deterring and punishing repeat offenders more severely than first-time offenders, these interests do not justify imposing excessive sentences without considering whether they are proportionate to an individual defendant’s culpability. The justices also criticized the majority for failing to apply a clear standard for determining when a sentence is unconstitutionally excessive.