In the case of Coy R. Grogan, et al. v. Frank J. Garner Jr., 1990, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that allowed for prejudgment attachment without prior notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The plaintiffs were two individuals who had their property seized by defendant Garner in order to satisfy a debt they allegedly owed him; however, this seizure occurred before any court judgment on the validity of this debt was made and without notifying them beforehand or giving them an opportunity to challenge it in court first. The Supreme Court ruled against Grogan and his co-plaintiffs, upholding Tennessee's prejudgment attachment statute as constitutional despite its lack of prior notice or hearing provisions because it provided sufficient post-seizure remedies such as prompt judicial review after seizure and bond posting options for regaining possession during litigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Coy R. Grogan, et al. v. Frank J. Garner, Jr., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state law allowing non-unanimous jury verdicts in civil cases did not violate the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury. He argued that this interpretation was inconsistent with historical practices and undermined the fundamental role of juries as protectors against unjust laws and biased judges. He contended that unanimity is an essential feature of jury trials, reflecting their purpose to prevent oppression by ensuring no one can be deprived of his rights without consent from his peers or community members who have no interest in violating those rights.