In the case of Moshe Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a provision in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that required supervised release after imprisonment applied to offenses committed during a specific interim period between two versions of the law. The defendant had been convicted for drug-related crimes committed during this interim period and argued that he should not be subject to supervised release because it was not explicitly mentioned in his sentencing guidelines at that time. The court ruled against Gozlon-Peretz by a vote of six justices to three. The majority opinion held that Congress intended for supervised release provisions to apply immediately upon enactment of the law, including those offenses committed during this transitional phase before new sentencing guidelines were officially established. This decision upheld lower courts' rulings and affirmed Gozlon-Peretz's sentence which included terms for both imprisonment and subsequent supervision.

In the dissenting opinion for Moshe Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, Justice Marshall argued that Congress did not intend to make supervised release mandatory for all drug offenses when it passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. He pointed out that in other sections of the same law, Congress explicitly stated when supervised release was required, suggesting they would have done so here if it had been their intention. Furthermore, he noted that making supervised release mandatory would represent a significant change from previous policy and there was no evidence to suggest this is what lawmakers intended. Instead, he believed they meant to give courts discretion over whether or not to impose this requirement based on individual circumstances.