In the case of Leonard Heller, Secretary, Kentucky Cabinet for Human Resources v. Samuel Doe et al., 1992, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state's decision to terminate parental rights should be subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiff in this case was a minor child who had been removed from his parents' custody due to allegations of neglect and abuse. His mother subsequently sought restoration of her parental rights but was denied by Kentucky authorities on grounds that it would not serve the best interests of her son. She challenged this decision arguing that it violated her constitutional right as a parent. The court held that while parents do have an important interest in maintaining their relationship with their children, states also have compelling interests in protecting minors from harm and ensuring they are raised in safe environments. Therefore, decisions regarding termination or restoration of parental rights need not always be subjected to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; rather such decisions can be made based on what is deemed best for each individual child’s welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Leonard Heller, Secretary, Kentucky Cabinet for Human Resources v. Samuel Doe et al., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision that a state agency violated an individual's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide him with necessary medical services in his home rather than in an institution. He argued that while ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their disabilities, it does not mandate states to fund certain types of care over others or require them to alter their preferred methods of service delivery. According to Scalia, requiring states to offer community-based treatment when institutionalized care is deemed appropriate would impose significant financial burdens and could potentially disrupt established healthcare systems without clear evidence of improved outcomes. Furthermore, he contended that such interpretation expands federal authority beyond its intended scope and infringes upon state sovereignty.