In the case of Gary Swarthout, Warden v. Damon Cooke (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Gary Swarthout, a California state prison warden. The respondent, Damon Cooke, an inmate at the time, had filed for habeas corpus relief arguing that his due process rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing which resulted in loss of good-time credits and 10 days' confinement to quarters as punishment for threatening a correctional officer. However, the Supreme Court held that federal courts are not authorized by law to reevaluate or set aside decisions made by state-level parole boards and administrators regarding prisoners’ entitlements unless there is evidence suggesting violation of basic procedural safeguards such as being notified about charges or having an opportunity to present statements in defense.

In the dissenting opinion for Gary Swarthout, Warden v. Damon Cooke, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that granted habeas corpus relief to inmate Damon Cooke. She argued that California state courts had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when they denied Cooke parole. According to her interpretation of Supreme Court precedent and due process rights, a denial of parole must be supported by "some evidence" demonstrating current dangerousness. In this case, she believed there was no such evidence against Cooke who had been model prisoner for over 20 years after committing his crime as a teenager under influence of drugs and alcohol. Therefore, in her view, denying him parole based on severity of his original offense alone was not sufficient or fair application of law.