In the case of Lloyd Henderson v. United States, 1995, Henderson was convicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. He appealed his conviction on several grounds including that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on an entrapment defense; that there was insufficient evidence supporting his convictions; that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; and finally, challenging his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court rejected all these arguments. It ruled against him stating there was no error in refusing to give an instruction on entrapment as it requires government inducement which wasn't present here. The court also found sufficient evidence supporting both convictions and dismissed claims about ineffective legal representation as they were better suited for habeas proceedings rather than direct appeal. Lastly, regarding ACCA sentencing challenge, it held that prior state law felony convictions qualified him for enhanced sentencing under ACCA.

In the dissenting opinion for Lloyd Henderson v. United States, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Henderson's conviction based on evidence obtained through a warrantless search of his car. She argued that this violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to her interpretation of precedent cases, police should only be allowed to conduct such searches if they have probable cause or if there is an immediate danger present - neither of which were applicable in this case. Furthermore, she criticized the Court’s application of “inevitable discovery” doctrine as it was not inevitable that legal means would have led to discovery of incriminating evidence in absence of constitutional violation by law enforcement officers during their search operation without a warrant.